- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:01:22 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On 4/8/13 1:20 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > If a browser can cache the data for a frame based on which frame it is > rather than just its URL In Gecko's case, say, it's cached based on URL and a sequence number (to handle POST). > If it can be made to work for POST, I don't see why srcdoc="" would be any > harder. Just treat it the same way. As in "store in the HTTP cache"? I suppose that could be done, in theory, but it would require rewriting how the HTTP cache interacts with the world... >> And yet in practice they are (not quite, but in the end similar). So >> the question is whether we should make that work or whether we just >> break it and expect all existing UAs and UA extensions to update. > > I don't think those are the only options. Sure, but the spec currently picks the second one of those two options, fwiw. > Well, as Rob said, arguably the mentioned UIs don't really apply here > anyway, so maybe they should just not be shown. Indeed. My point was to raise a concern about this, in case it hadn't been considered, not to suggest a specific solution. I don't have a specific solution to suggest. > Note that nothing in the spec mentions these UI features at all Sure. At the same time, the existing UI feature set of UAs, and how feasible it is to support those features with new technologies we add, is worth considering when we spec new technologies. Just as a thought. I don't know that I have much more to contribute to this thread, honestly... -Boris
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 12:01:51 UTC