I currently have a blog site embedded into a fixed-size <div> on another web page using an iframe. In order to migrate the site from XHTML Transitional to Strict I need to ditch the iframe, and so far as I can tell I should be using an <object> element to do the same task.

Problem is, this sample code:

<div id="object_window" style="left: 20px; top: 100px; width: 930px; height: 650px;">

 <object id="page_to_show" type="text/html" data="http://www.google.com"
style="height:100%; width:100%;">
<p>Alternate text.</p>
</object>

 </div>

works a treat in FF but IE7 just delivers an empty box (not even the alt text). Is there a work-around that's still Strict compliant?

(Yes, I know the style stuff belongs in a style sheet, I was trying to make an example that was easy to post here )

Thanks in advance!

And why does it need to be XHTML strict?

Because that's the standard I've been learning now, and I'd like to expand my ability to encompass this existing site. If it can't be done, all well and good, but if it's possible I'd like to learn how.

Nothing to stop you coding as strict and using a transitional DTD.

So there's no way to make it work without using iframes?

It's what Iframes are supposed to be for.

But "transitional" is just that: a temporary phase as you transition to the correct, "Strict" compliance with the standard. That means iframes are going away. If I didn't care whether I were using a Transitional or a Strict DTD I wouldn't have broached the question.

I wasn't looking for a philosophical debate on whether it's worthwhile to adhere to the Strict standard, I was asking a technical question about whether this were possible within that standard.

Thank you in advance.

Then use an appropriate DTD and have a FRAMESET DTD.

Do you HAVE to use XHTML or is it just the "designer snobbery"?

I'm sorry, I was under the impression this was a forum for finding technical help with HTML issues, not for airing personal agendas and catching grief for asking. I seem to have stumbled across your personal cabbage patch, instead.

I'll take my questions elsewhere. Thanks anyway.

I don't have any personal agenda just trying to work out why you are creating problems for yourself.

Because of the wide variations in browser compatibility sometimes you have to accept things cannot be done the way you want.

Okay, in the probably-unlikely reason anyone out there cares about writing code in compliance with XHTML Strict (if this doesn't apply to you then please read no further, there's nothing here to interest you), there is a workaround to make <object> work mostly as it's supposed to in IE, but the page you're linking in cannot be on a remote server.

Let's assume you want to bring in a Wordpress blog installed in a folder off your site's root called my_blog_folder. This is the code to make it appear:

<!--[if IE]> 
    <object classid="clsid:25336920-03F9-11CF-8FD0-00AA00686F13" type="text/html"
        data="my_blog_folder/index.php" style="width:100%;height:100%;">
        <p>Please tell the webmaster you saw this, something is wrong.</p>
    </object>
 <![endif]-->
 <!--[if !IE]><-->
    <object type="text/html" data="my_blog_folder/index.php" style="width:100%;height:100%;">
        <p>Please tell the webmaster you saw this, something is wrong.</p>
    </object>
<!--><![endif]-->

Wrap this in a <div> block styled to the location and size you want the blog to use, and it will create scroll bars as necessary. For further correctness the style elements above could be moved into your CSS sheet quite easily, of course. Since they merely assert 100% of what's already defined in your style sheet their inclusion in the HTML can be a grey area.

Of course you can get the exact appearance and behavior using iframes, but please remember: all along I stipulated HTML Strict compliance. If you don't care about that, then please just move along without comment and leave this thread to those who do care about such things.

Thanks for looking.

but the page you're linking in cannot be on a remote server.

Correct!

NOW do you get my point about what iframes are for?

I do write valid code BUT I care more about SEMANTIC CODE!
That is, using elements for the purpose they are intended.

For the sake of sanity there are times when compromises are required, just because you may switch to a "loose" specification when needed, does not mean that every body is going to make fun of your lack of principles.

Strictly speaking, unless your pages make use of XML/XLST you should be using a HTML4.01 specification.

For those who believe in adhering to the most current standard and only resorting to outmoded, deprecated elements as a last resort...

There is a very real benefit to avoiding iframes if possible: content brought in via <object> is supported by mobility browsers such as the Blackberry's, whereas iframes are not. I personally maintain at least one site where that distinction is about to make my life much easier, and my Blackberry-wielding users happier.

The only down side to <object> content is Microsoft's failure to code their browser properly to conform to standards (<object> works exactly as it is supposed to, and eliminates the need for deprecated elements, in all other browsers that matter), and it may even one day be possible that they wake up and correct their errors.

Actually until HTML5 reaches recommended status, HTML 4.01 IS the current standard for HTML markup code.
XHTML is NOT the "latest version" of HTML.

So where is the iframe deprecated? other than in a non-frameset DTD of course.