- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:14:05 +0100
Quoting Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch>: >> http://zcorpan.1go.dk/test/html/embedded/ >> >> Are the pass conditions correct? > > Not sure, I haven't really worked out what that section should say yet. > > I think for <img> you want to only support image/* types (e.g. not > text/plain or text/html, not sure about image/svg+xml either, since there > is no difference between that and application/xhtml+xml); and you want to > only show them for 200 (or 301-200). This is what is tested I believe. (image/svg+xml is indeed though one. People want it to work though. Also for 'background-image' and 'list-style-image' which are basically the same...) > For <iframe> you want to support all > types, and you want to show the contents for all the response codes, but > they should show inside the frame regardless of the type. Really? Wouldn't it be better to show the fallback content of the element? IMHO <iframe> should just be a special case of <object>. > For <embed> you > want to show only things that require plugins, and only if they have 200 > (or 301-200) responses. And what to do with the other things? "image/png" does not really require a plugin but UAs will load QuickTime or so. "text/html" will do nothing and show some: "this format is not supported, look for a plugin" message... I would like this to become a special case of <object> as well actually. Although there is some issue with fallback content... -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 12:14:05 UTC