On Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Andrew Oakley wrote: > > > > <iframe> outside a document doesn't initiate a load, so it's case is > > different. > > I'm not sure it is - we can create an <iframe> in the document then > remove it before it loads. Most browsers seem to give up on loading the > contents of the iframe if you do this (IE continues to delay the load > event until it has loaded the iframe). > > As far as I can tell HTML5 says that you shouldn't do anything when an > iframe is removed from a document (and therefore the frame should > continue to load and delay the load event, assuming it isn't GC'd). > > I think we should be consistent here - if we continue to delay the load > events for <img>, <video> and <audio> after they have been removed from > the tree then the same should be true for <iframe>.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Ojan Vafai wrote: > > We should add a keepalive attribute to iframes that prevents iframes > from being unloaded/reloaded when removed from or appended to a > document. Similarly, a disconnected iframe with keepalive should load. > If the keepalive attribute is removed from a disconnected iframe, then > it should unload. > > I'm not terribly happy with the name 'keepalive', but I can't think of > anything better at the moment. > > As iframes increasingly become the standard way of achieving certain > tasks (e.g. sandboxing), it's increasingly important to be able to move > them around in the DOM. Right now, to achieve this sort of keepalive > behavior, you have to keep the iframe always appended to the document > and position it absolutely as the document changes. On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Adam Barth wrote: > > We just got finished removing this feature from WebKit because it caused > many security and stability problems. It turns out that there's a lot > of code in browsers that can't cope with a disconnected iframe being > alive. I've changed the spec to make removing an iframe from a document cause the nested browsing context to be discarded. (This includes when a node is moved from one place in the DOM to another.) On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Darin Fisher wrote: > > Can you hide this behind adoptNode just as we did for "magic iframe"? > The nice thing about adoptNode is that the browser gets told both the > source and destination parent nodes. This way there is never a > disconnected state. > > So long as we unload when moving between documents, we should be pretty > safe as far as the issues which plagued magic iframe are concerned. On Mon, 16 Apr 2012, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > > FWIW, IE used to not reload iframes when they were moved around in the > tree. They changed this behavior in IE9 so maybe there was some compat > issues? I couldn't find a browser that let iframes survive even being moved around the same document. (I was unable to test Opera or IE, though.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'