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

Re: <iframe doc="">

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:19:18 +0000 (UTC)
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001150334320.17282@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >>
> >> Why call it @doc and not @html then? My first reaction to @doc was - 
> >> "what? we're pointing to word documents?".
> >
> > "html" is a type, "doc" is a description. Calling the attribute "html" 
> > would be equivalent to calling the "title" attribute "string", or 
> > calling the "start" attribute on <ol> "integer".
> Fair enough - but it's exactly the same problem that my first instinct 
> made me react to doc: doc is a type to a lot of people. Maybe then 
> @document would be better? (note that I am not overly concerned about 
> this, but I assume many ppl will have a similar gut reaction to "doc" as 
> I did).

I don't think we want to use an attribute name as long as "document", 
given how often authors might have to type this, but if there are better 
names than doc="" that are still short, we should definitely consider them.

In the many months of discussing this attribute, though, this is the first 
time I've heard of anyone think it might refer to the .doc format. So this 
may not be a particularly serious problem.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 04:19:49 UTC

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