- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:37:35 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2012, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> >> >> It seems to me like the best solution is to have a new HTTP header, >> >> with the four following values being allowed: >> >> >> >> Seamless-Options: allow-shrink-wrap >> >> Seamless-Options: allow-styling >> >> Seamless-Options: allow-shrink-wrap allow-styling >> >> Seamless-Options: allow-styling allow-shrink-wrap >> > >> > I guess it depends how costly you think it is to mint new HTTP headers >> > rather than having fewer, harder working headers. >> >> I hear no end of people arguing that HTTP headers are too hard for >> people to use. Could we make these settable through <meta> elements as >> well as, or instead of, using headers. > > The problem is that we need to have the information before we create the > Document, since once the Document is created the page might be rendered, > and if the information comes after the Document is rendered, there would > be flicker (different sizes for the iframes, different styles in the > iframes). One solution would be not not render the contained document in the <iframe seamless=""> until we hit the element that opts in to cross-origin seamless rendering. If the document never opts in, it'll never get rendered, but is still loaded. This might be non-trivial to implement though since I believe that unrendered documents is not something that exists in the platform today. The simplest way to emulate it would be to make the <iframe> act as if it was display:none. / Jonas
Received on Sunday, 16 December 2012 01:38:31 UTC