- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:53:14 -0400
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 3/13/15 12:01 PM, Andrea Rendine wrote: > From the W3 spec (all versions, for what I remember), the rules for > parsing documents in <iframe@srcdoc> are as follows: Those aren't the rules for parsing it. Those are the author conformance requirements to have a document considered to be valid (X)HTML. The rules for parsing in http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/ are defined at http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-html5-20141028/embedded-content-0.html#process-the-iframe-attributes and say the following: If the srcdoc attribute is specified Navigate the element's child browsing context to a resource whose Content-Type is text/html, whose URL is about:srcdoc, and whose data consists of the value of the attribute. The resulting Document must be considered an iframe srcdoc document. The content-type is text/html, so the HTML parser is used, period. > Now, this is my question: consider a document represented by the > following markup (properly escaped): > <p>This is an <abbr>HTML</abbr> paragraph with <b>nested > <i>elements</i></b></p> > > This is very simple, of course. It matches the requirements for > srcdoc-based documents in HTML ... > It's also a valid XML document Yep. > How are UAs supposed to treat a value like the one proposed above, apart > from current interpretations? FF a couple of versions ago implemented > HTML serialisation on iframe elements in XHTML documents, as Chrome > currently does, thus ignoring self-closing elements and adding implied > ones. I assume you meant "parsing", not "serialization"? If so, then this is what the spec says to do, yes. -Boris
Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 16:53:45 UTC