W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2005

[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:14:05 +0100
Message-ID: <20051128211405.ezhnb7m0qsow4o8w@webmail.annevankesteren.nl>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:43 UTC