- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 11:29:28 +0200
Am 05.04.2012 03:59 schrieb Ojan Vafai: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Ojan Vafai<ojan at chromium.org> wrote: > >> 1. We should add iframe[seamless] { display:block; }. >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#embedded-content-2 already >> expects iframe:not([seamless]) { border: 2px inset; }. In 90% percent of >> uses, seamless iframes will not want a border and will want to fill their >> container. This way, seamless iframes behave roughly like sandboxable divs, >> which is what web developers want. >> >> 2. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#attr-iframe-seamless "In >> visual media, in a CSS-supporting user agent: the user agent should set the >> intrinsic width of the iframe to the width that the element would have if >> it was a non-replaced block-level element with 'width: auto'." >> >> This doesn't get the behavior you'd want with cases that need >> shrink-wrapped behavior. Some cases that need handling: >> <iframe seamless style="display:inline"> >> <iframe seamless style="display:inline-block"> >> <iframe seamless style="float:left"> >> <iframe seamless style="position:absolute"> >> > > 3. The default margin on the body element inside a seamless iframe should > be 0. Again, this is what 90%+ of uses will expect. We shouldn't require > everyone using seamless iframes to have to set the body's margin to 0. As a developer, I am very happy about this suggestion. Please note there was a discussion on parts of this topic, starting here: http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-July/027011.html (I am sorry the examples I linked to are not online anymore.)
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 02:29:28 UTC