-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Recommend iframe/img over embed/object for some content types #4592
Comments
I think the recommendation should go much further: NEVER use |
Is |
Well, |
I would support, and be willing to do spec work for, deprecating object and embed. They are very bad. The less people use them, the more we can work on security improvements such as #7327 and the auto-sizing issue mentioned here, as well as simplifications such as generally unifying them with iframe logic as much as possible. I think the main question is whether we want to have a carveout to still allow same-origin interactive-SVG |
Allowing |
For PDF, an iframe displays a download prompt for browsers not able to do rendering. |
So note that both embed and object have autosizing to interactive SVG contents (whereas iframe does not): http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=10403 . This makes the choice of what to deprecate a bit arbitrary. #7939 is appealing, if we could just remove that capability... |
If the proposal from @tabatkins and @chrishtr et al. to bring that functionality to |
See #4590
also #3752 (comment)
embed
orobject
still make sense for Flash and, I suppose, interactive SVG (iframe
doesn't change its size to the resource's intrinsic size... yet), but for HTML (and PDF?) the spec should recommend usingiframe
and for imagesimg
. Maybe mentionaudio
andvideo
as well for completeness.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: