- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:16:44 +0100
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
- Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
-public-html +www-archive On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:38:15 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> Why would you recommend <iframe> instead of <object>? > > <object> has downsides due to the fact that it behaves differently for > image types, types handled by plugins, and natively handled types that > form a DOM. Which of these three modes is enabled cannot be properly > decided until the type of a remote resource is retrieved from the > server. This tends to cause performance and correctness issues. The browser can be hinted of the type with the type='' attribute. It might turn out to be incorrect, but if it's correct, I'd hope there to be no noticeable performance difference. > <iframe>, which is specialized for containing a natively supported DOM- > forming document type, tends to work more reliably. It would be my > first choice to embed either HTML or SVG. <iframe> has a border by default, and a default size of 300x150 which the SVG can't affect. <object> and <img> by default size themselves after the SVG, which is a nice feature. <object> and <img> also support fallback content for browsers that don't support SVG. SVG in <img> is not supported in Firefox yet, though. For these reasons, my first choice would be <object> when embedding SVG. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 01:17:29 UTC