24747 2014-02-20 19:08:58 +0000 3 questions: a) Why these many restrictions to iframe content if it ends up being treated as text? b) Why in XHTML there must be no content at all? c) Is it the same for palpable content of object ele [...] 2014-02-24 10:24:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED WORKSFORME http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#iframe-content-model P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian anakin_rendine ian mike zcorpan contributor oldest_to_newest 100985 0 contributor 2014-02-20 19:08:58 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-iframe-element.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#iframe-content-model Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#iframe-content-model Referrer: Comment: 3 questions: a) Why these many restrictions to iframe content if it ends up being treated as text? b) Why in XHTML there must be no content at all? c) Is it the same for palpable content of object elements in XHTML documents? Posted from: 84.220.159.204 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/32.0.1700.107 Safari/537.36 100997 1 ian 2014-02-20 20:23:58 +0000 a) It ends up as text only in new UAs; in (really old) legacy UAs the <iframe> element isn't recognised and so the contents get parsed normally. b) In XHTML, it all gets parsed normally, so if there were contents it would end up in the DOM as elements. c) I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate on c)? 101109 2 anakin_rendine 2014-02-21 14:59:44 +0000 (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #1) > a) It ends up as text only in new UAs; in (really old) legacy UAs the > <iframe> element isn't recognised and so the contents get parsed normally. > > b) In XHTML, it all gets parsed normally, so if there were contents it would > end up in the DOM as elements. > > c) I don't understand the question. > > Can you elaborate on c)? Thanks for a) and b). About c), my request was, if there is a need that the content of <iframe> is not parsed as markup (and in XHTML there must be no content at all), is it fine that in both HTML and XHTML <object> has elements inside it? 101122 3 ian 2014-02-21 17:38:36 +0000 The difference is that <object> contents _are_ parsed in modern browsers, and even more importantly, the contents are _used_ when fallback is needed. So authors will be aware of its effects, and down-level users won't get unintended effects. 101126 4 anakin_rendine 2014-02-21 17:50:19 +0000 (In reply to Ian 'Hixie' Hickson from comment #3) I thought that the issue was the fact that XHTML-based parsers are uncapable of distinguishing where proper markup is to be hidden rather than shown normally (a bit of the idea behind the unusability of <noscript> in XHTML). Now I see, the problem is actually in the parsing. Thank you.