Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-100 srcdoc

?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:22 AM
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Subject: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-100 srcdoc

>
> == Appealing this Decision ==
>
> If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would 
> like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal 
> Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team. 
> Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition 
> request.
>

I disagree if that matters. Having markup nested at no allowance inside 
attributes
is a path to troubles. Proved many times in practice.

I'd like to know what is conceptually wrong with rather this:

<html>
   <head>
       <script type="text/html" id="nested">
           ... Some <em>nested</em> content ...
       </script>
   </head>
   <iframe src="#nested">
</html>

if someone really need such type of inclusion.

This provides exactly same functionality as srcdoc as far as I can see
and will not create problems with e.g. escapement of <'> and <">
characters, etc. as in that naïve markup-inside-attribute approach.

As far as understand the only practical use case of the @srcdoc
is in scripting - when frame content is generated dynamically
by the script on its host page.
If "yes" then it could be enough to  provide a method that does
just that:
interface HTMLIFrameElement : HTMLElement
 {
           ....
           void setContent(DOMString document);
 };

Or did I miss something in principle?

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 03:22:20 UTC