W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2010

[whatwg] Proposal: @srctype or @type on <iframe>

From: Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:53:16 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimo3PWyJxP-Z99QrCl61LHYIudjz9btLZndxWfh@mail.gmail.com>

I don't hate the HTTP Content-Type header. In fact, I like it very much.

But this proposal was intended to guide the user agent before they
ever receive the HTTP Content-Type header. ;)


On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
<nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote:
> "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

Gordon P. Hemsley
me at gphemsley.org
http://gphemsley.org/ ? http://gphemsley.org/blog/
http://sasha.sourceforge.net/ ? http://www.yoursasha.com/
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 23:53:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:24 UTC