Re: <iframe doc="">

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.

/ Jonas

Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 04:20:10 UTC