Re: <iframe doc="">

On 1/18/10 11:10 PM, Joe D Williams wrote:
> maybe so for some set of sameness. I think read the standard for the
> different elements.
> If webkit is safari, then yes I can show a couple of examples that don't
> work. Not html but a test for a plugin look at:

Hold.  No one claimed anything about behavior for plug-ins.  The claim 
made was very specific: an <object> loading HTML behaves just like an 
<iframe> loading HTML.  The discussion was specifically about loading 
HTML.  Plug-ins are irrelevant.

> One testing step would be to instead create a simple html file with an
> anchor in it and see if the <iframe>, <embed>, and <object> allow me to
> replace the contained document.

<embed> can't load HTML.  <iframe> and <object> can both be targeted 
with <a target="something"> at least in Gecko.

> And also figure out how the host DOM can affect the nested DOM.

Any way it wants to, subject to same-origin restrictions.  No difference 
for <iframe> vs <object> if you reach in via contentDocument.

>> If you put text/html into an <object> element (which is what we're
>> suggesting with @doc), then it acts just like a frame.
> An iframe is not a frame. and iframe is not an object.

What Adam and Maciej and I are telling you is that in at least Gecko and 
Webkit they _are_ in fact the same thing, for purposes of HTML 
rendering.  As in, the same exact code is used to implement HTML 
rendering in all three.

> Maybe for html content the functionality could be similar but there is a very narrow
> band where an object should act like an iframe unless the iframe does
> actually represent a separate browser instance.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here....

> Including @doc in <object> is even more over
> the edge and totally bordering on I don't know what.

Was someone suggesting doing that?  I must have missed it....  Can you 
point me to the relevant mail, please?


Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 05:20:34 UTC