- From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:15:48 -0500
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:35:30 -0500, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> >> wrote: >>> I don't understand how you can assume that the destination of the doc >>> URL is going to be text/HTML? Why couldn't the iFrame be pointing to >>> an SVG image, for example, or a PDF? Those are also valid (and in the >>> latter case of PDF, quite common) things one would put in an iFrame >>> and wish to refer to... >> >> @doc doesn't take a url, it takes literal html code (with quotes >> escaped). It is intended to help with the use of multiple <iframe>s >> on a page, especially @sandbox'd ones, so that you don't incur >> multiple network requests but still get the security benefits of >> framing the content such as blog comments. >> >> ~TJ >> >> > > Why call it @doc and not @html then? My first reaction to @doc was - > "what? we're pointing to word documents?". > Silvia. I agree. @html makes more sense. -- Michael
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 18:16:24 UTC