Re: Fwd: [SM-DEVEL] Spam with giant image prevents deleting it

[p d. t. <pdo...@an...>]

Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, March 8, 2005 02:46, p dont think said:
> 
>>Surely we can use
>>iframe in a simple enough way to avoid most of that, but I can envision
>>plugin authors trying to do some more fancy stuff and even just iframes
>>will increase our browser requirements significantly.
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that, because IFRAME is listed in the HTML 4.0 spec.

That's the nice part about listing requirements/compatibility against 
standards.  Iframe is a lot newer, though, and as such, there was a lot 
more recent jostling for creating standards thru implementation during 
the height of the browser wars.

My point is less about whether or not the element is listed therein, but 
more about how quirky it is and how varied support for it is.  Netscape 
4 comes to mind only because that's an easy example; I don't remember if 
NS4 even (supposedly) supports HTML 4 (not?), but I think SM mostly 
works in such browsers...  I'm not necessarily arguing against this 
idea, but just pointing out that by using it, we should be aware that we 
are starting the walk away from support on some of these older browsers.

> The spec also more or less indicates that a browser that supports regular
> frames (which we require) can also be expected to support iframes.

Heh, yah.  But we all know that spec != support.  ;)

> I'm not
> sure about realworld browser support, but since we (try to) keep to the
> HTML 4 standard this should be doable.