- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:14:27 -0800
On 1/25/2012 5:06 PM, Paul Kinlan wrote: > [Merging the digest reply from Charles] Thanks, sorry about breaking the subject line. For others: this mini thread is in relation to <intent><script src=""></script></intent> behavior. > I would prefer to treat it like a embedded content element [1] and > have the intent spec define how fallback content should be presented > and parsed - so we would define that<script> is ignored in a > conforming UA. In our case we would want to work like the video > element [2] with the added script restriction. > > Is this a completely abhorent solution? Yes, that's completely abhorrent. Remember, <video> uses new tags, like <source>, so it can get away with such trickery. <script>, like the <img> tag, is old magic. We would have to change the HTML parser or otherwise alter DOM semantics to make it work. Image content and script content in the dom, with a src attribute, will be loaded regardless of tags, with the exception of noscript. <video><img src="content.jpg" /></video> -- that'll still load the image, though it won't display it. -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:14:27 UTC