On 12/2/2010 2:48 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:58:46 -0500
From: Boris Zbarsky<[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] CSS canvas() function
Message-ID:<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 12/1/10 6:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> My question was specifically for an out-of-document<iframe>.
Most browsers don't load documents in such<iframe>s at all, right?
Is this one in specs somewhere? It's relevant to some work I'm doing on
another spec.
We've certainly hit some issues with such thinking in IE, in our
compatibility work,
in activating an Active X based canvas element. IE does not apply CSS
browser behaviors until
an element was added into the DOM tree.
As your side has stated, canvas elements outside of DOM require a
special call.
..
Generally, I agree, <iframe>s should not be used out of document, as we
have suitable APIs, like XHR.
That said, hackish solutions for corner cases will always exist: [iframe
style="visibility: hidden; z-index: -1"]
exists to serve. Just as style="opacity: 0" comes in extremely handy for
some cases. But those users
are free to write that into their scripting / HTML. It's just important
that we know it's a defined behavior.
> Should this work? The rendering of a non-seamless<iframe> doesn't
> depend on any other elements in the document. In general, any
> replaced element seems to fall into this camp.
I don't think that's true. For example,<svg> is a replaced element in
CSS terms. But its rendering depends on stylesheets, media, etc, etc.
Now that SVG is being integrated in with HTML that's certainly true; I'd
think there was a time
when it wasn't. I agree, "replaced element" is too broad.
