- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:56:28 -0700
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Oct 13, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > ? > > -------------------------------------------------- > 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. There was no Change Proposal based on this proposal, and there was more than adequate time for anyone interested in the topic to submit one. Decisions are based solely on the proposals that are actually on the table. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 19:57:01 UTC