- From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:39:28 +0200
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> It has to be done this way for compatibility, as scripts depend on > browsers treating about:blank as an HTML document in quirks mode. > > e.g. sites that use this: > > <iframe src="about:blank"></iframe> > > And then add content to the document with scripts. Weird indeed. But makes for a sufficient explanation, thanks. Could we then have an empty document be valid HTML? I really think defining a URI to resolve to something invalid and not deprecating it would be inconsistent and can be avoided here without much difficulty. Or would you prefer to deprecate? Best regards, Krzysztof
Received on Saturday, 19 September 2009 09:40:15 UTC