W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:04:29 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f1001141704y6994763cmc6095226814592e5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Joe D Williams, Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:25:26 -0800:
>>> Joe, you did not answer my question (or perhaps I was unclear): What
>>> if the <iframe> element resides in a XHTML5 document? Does @doc then
>>> still only permit text/html content?
>> If what you are asking is can you use <iframe> to import text/html
>> into a browser-hosted document defined as application/xhtml+xml, then
>> the imported stuff must obey xml and be in the default document
>> namespace or parent namespace of the iframe?
> May be Maciej should answer what he meant:
>>>>> Maciej Stachowiak, Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:52:20 -0800:
>>>>>>> The question still remains... would @doc allow SVG code, for example?
>>>>>> Using SVG-in-HTML, yes (since it assumes a text/html MIME type).
>>>>>> Using the traditional XML serialization of SVG, no.
> In the thread it was said that it would have to be text/html code. But
> I'll suppose that it was meant that  content of @doc has to have the
> the same MIME as the parent document.

Which MIME type would be used if the document hadn't been loaded at
all, but constructed directly using only the DOM?

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 01:05:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:56 UTC