On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> As for <iframe> in a text/html document, would the code inside @doc have >> to be a full HTML document, with DOCTYPE and everything, or could it be >> a code fragment (for which the UA would generate the full DOM - >> presumably)? > > That's one of the open issues, but so far I'm leaning towards making the > DOCTYPE be always implied and making the <title> optional, at least for > text/html. > > I'm not sure what to do for the XML variant; requiring the namespace each > time seems a bit extreme. The simplest solution is to imply the <html > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/html"> ... </html> around the contents of > the attribute, but then that would still require an explicit <head> and > <body>, which is rather verbose. > > I suppose we could look at what the root element is and then simply imply > whatever parents it needs -- if it is an <html>, imply nothing, if it's a > <body>, imply <html>, and otherwise, imply <html>, <head>, and <body>. But > it would be very awkward to do that if there were scripts running in this > document, which is one of the goals here. > > I briefly considered saying we should imply the prefixes and default > namespace that are in scope on the <iframe>, but then you run into all the > dynamic QNames-in-attribute issues, so that's more-or-less a non-starter. > > If anyone has any good ideas on how to make this work in XML without being > so verbose, please do speak up. The problem with implying *anything* in XML is that it means that you can't use an off-the-shelf XML parser. This would be rather unfortunate. / JonasReceived on Friday, 15 January 2010 04:20:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC