[Bug 10845] New: Clarify the difference between @srcdoc documents and @srcdoc value


           Summary: Clarify the difference between @srcdoc documents and
                    @srcdoc value
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
               URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-iframe-element#an-ifr
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson)
        AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
        ReportedBy: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,

Spec says:

The value of the attribute in is an iframe srcdoc document.
For iframe elements in HTML documents, the attribute, if present, must have a
value using the HTML syntax [#syntax] that consists of the following syntactic
components, in the given order: 
                    [ snipping point 1 to 3]
  4. The root element, in the form of an html element.
                    [ snipping point 5] 


A) the text here speaks about the string inside the @srcdoc attribute
     - it does not speak about the DOM when the srcdoc is rendered.
B) while the 'the root element' is listed as a 'syntactic component' which
    the @srcdoc must contain, the code examples in the spec - such as
    the following,

           ]] srcdoc="<p>did you get a cover picture yet?"  [[

    - do not syntactically contain the <html> element ...
    Or, how can one say that the p element, inside an attribute value, 
    embodies the 'the root element'? _That_ only happens in the DOM.


Please replace the above quote with the following modification:

]]  [the attribute, if present, must have] as value the following parts of the
HTML syntax  [#syntax], in the given order:   [ snipping the 5 point list ]  


Ideally, you could - much as you for XML just point to XML's 'document'
production - just link to the #syntax
(http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/syntax#syntax) and say that @srcdoc can contain
the HTML syntax, with the exception that the DOCTYPE is optional and the BOM is
not permitted.

However, since you don't do that,  but still *do* point to [#syntax], it seems
beneficial just to skip the undefined term "syntactical components" and instead
make the link to [#syntax] stronger by saying "the following parts of/from the
HTML syntax". ('part' is a word that you use in the [#syntax] section).

By making the link stronger, readers will more easily understand that the
consepts, with regard to ability to skip what is generated in the DOM anyway,
is the same when it comes to @srcdoc as it is generally.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 01:33:12 UTC