- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Michael A. Puls II wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:07:26 -0500, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, Michael A. Puls II wrote: > > > > > > However, I still like the idea of explicitly specifying full markup > > > for the embedded doc like you can with src="data:". I also like > > > being able to do src="data:application/xml," in text/html pages. > > > > The doc="" idea certainly wouldn't preclude using data: URIs with > > src="". > > Understood. It just seems like @doc should/could have *almost* the same > capabilities. One of the main reasons for considering doc="" is making it simple, so I don't know if we really want to add too much power here (there's usually a direct correlation between power and complexity, and an inverse correlation between power and ease of use). Unless there's really a strong use case, I'd rather leave the less common cases to the existing data: mechanism, which has been shown to work (albeit with the corresponding loss of ease of use). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 09:07:44 UTC