- From: Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 08:48:46 +0200
"Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley at gmail.com> schrieb am Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:31:19 -0400: > It should not be assumed that whatever resource included via <iframe> > is going to be of type 'text/html' or another easily parsable type. > Thus, it could be helpful for the author to give the user agent a > hint as to what type of document it is requesting be displayed > inline, and allow the user agent to choose not to display the > contents of the <iframe> if it feels it cannot support it. Have you thought of using HTTP Content-Type headers and classic MIME type handling to determine compatibility ? > [?] > > Now, I'm not a spec implementor by any means, but I am a web author > and a web user, so I've been on both sides of this issue. And it > doesn't appear that it would be too complicated to extend the > existing support of @type. AFAIK, implementors could use HTTP Content-Type headers for the given purpose. > Thoughts? Why do you hate HTTP Content-Type headers ? ;) Cheers, Nils -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100713/b9454fe8/attachment-0001.pgp>
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 23:48:46 UTC