The <iframe> tag is invalid in XHTML strict AND HTML strict

BUT.....

Apparently it is valid in HTML5

Making a comeback?


I think its important to distinguish between <iframe> and
the nasty old school <frame> tag.

<iframes> are like embedded objects within a page that obey normal
formatting rules.


The <frame> tag defines one particular window (frame) within a frameset.
Each frame in a frameset can have different attributes, such as border, scrolling, the ability to resize, etc.
To be valid it also requires a Frameset DOCTYPE.

Actually HTML5 makes a lot of differences from XHTML. It'll never be the XML way any more.

In addition, there's lots of new features such as inherently scripted form controls without the need of javascript.

Originally Posted by TWD

The <iframe> tag is invalid in XHTML strict AND HTML strict

An IFRAME element will still work in either of those document types. The reason it is coming back in HTML 5 is because it is useful for web-applications, and is widely used. It is sometimes important to have a totally sterile CSS and scripting environment so that it may be ported into anything. The most common example is online text-editors, such as the one we type on here every time we make a post. Virtually every online text editor on the internet uses an IFRAME which communicates with a TEXTAREA through JavaScript calls.

The problem with an IFRAME, is that beginners often use it in the place of Server Side Includes, which it is not very useful for.

Thank's For sharing about iframes in this much detail,I just little about it iframes are inline frames. They can be inserted into the body of a html page and you can populate the iframe with static html or dynamically via a cgi script etc.

Originally Posted by wayfarer07

An IFRAME element will still work in either of those document types. The reason it is coming back in HTML 5 is because it is useful for web-applications, and is widely used. It is sometimes important to have a totally sterile CSS and scripting environment so that it may be ported into anything. The most common example is online text-editors, such as the one we type on here every time we make a post. Virtually every online text editor on the internet uses an IFRAME which communicates with a TEXTAREA through JavaScript calls.

The problem with an IFRAME, is that beginners often use it in the place of Server Side Includes, which it is not very useful for.

No argument from me. I think iFrames are extremely useful too.
It just seems odd that they were scratched from the both Strict DOCTYPES which would seem to imply that the W3C saw no valid place for them.
Now here they are again in HTML5. There must be some kind of story behind it. Is it simply that technology has veered in an unanticipated direction?

Now if only we could get them to allow the target ="_blank" attribute *sigh*

target="_blank" is coming back too I thought. Look it up, but I thought I read that somewhere. I use this one personally, and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the standard.

I think at the time that HTML 4 and XHTML were put together there was a big movement in the standards committee against anything that was a frame, due to how disastrous FRAMESETS were, and how sloppy the usage of Inline frames were in general. After all, using IFRAMES is usually a poor design choice. In hindsight, excluding them from a strict interpretation of HTML seems to me to be a mistake, however, since they are useful in certain circumstances.

Originally Posted by wayfarer07

target="_blank" is coming back too I thought. Look it up, but I thought I read that somewhere. I use this one personally, and don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the standard.

I think at the time that HTML 4 and XHTML were put together there was a big movement in the standards committee against anything that was a frame, due to how disastrous FRAMESETS were, and how sloppy the usage of Inline frames were in general. After all, using IFRAMES is usually a poor design choice. In hindsight, excluding them from a strict interpretation of HTML seems to me to be a mistake, however, since they are useful in certain circumstances.

100% agree.
I hope you are right about the target "_blank"
Now if I can just wade through the turgid W3C announcements...

Bring back <center> and align=center and I will die happy.....

Not everyone wants to left justify everything.

Originally Posted by marketingman100

Bring back <center> and align=center and I will die happy.....

Not everyone wants to left justify everything.

Of course, you'll be free to go ahead and keep using that stuff, since browsers will continue to support the old style of markup. I wouldn't expect much support from the standards committee though.

Why use an iframe, when you can change your page extensions to .php and use a php include instead. Well, actually, after saying that I can see its uses, but none the less it is messy!

iFrames are out!

I would say what ever tags the web consortium wants to be 'valid' in the new web standards they will allow...I just say, screw it...If you like the way your site looks, enjoy it, and others will also enjoy it. That's all you need to know about the 'web standards'...

The target attribute has never really gone away, in reality it was only ever truly applicable for frameset DTDs in any version of HTML/XHTML.

Originally Posted by Brian07002

If you like the way your site looks, enjoy it, and others will also enjoy it. That's all you need to know about the 'web standards'...

Brian. I agree with you. If it looks good to you ... run with it.
I wasted a goodly amount of time just after 2000 tring to learn to cope with browser incompatibility issues. The final conclusion was that it just wasn't worth the trouble. Not on the webmaster side anyway.

I do think the push to have standards should be supported though,
even if real artists decide to ignore them.

And, on the main subject:

I'm glad <iframes> are back since I just redid my site to be totally enclosed in an <iframes> template. Thanks (maybe) for inspiring me Wayfarer.

I also target all external (outside my own domain ) web pages to _blank.
This is to keep them from appearing inside my own <iframe>.
There was a copyright suit prior to 2000 where the judgement was that
loading external pages into internal frames could ( and did in the case I am thinking of ) constitute a copyright infringement.

..snip

There was a copyright suit prior to 2000 where the judgement was that
loading external pages into internal frames could ( and did in the case I am thinking of ) constitute a copyright infringement.

That amazes me, ****, what is with people, I remember when people just wanted a link to on your site...