Talk:IFrame

Untitled

Some history and more dates would have been apprec. 207.112.68.225 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, how do I embed an Iframe in a mediawiki page? Minitrue

---

There should be some discussion in this article about the use of contenteditable and designmode with iframes, as it is currently quita a popular use.

What is it, how does it work? AxelBoldt 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Should there be a discussion about how iframes are being used (abused) by phishing and malware authors?

Sure, can you add it? AxelBoldt 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Isn't there alot of criticism of iframes? And I don't think they comply with W3C so is it good or bad? --60.234.50.13 20:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (User:Nzhamstar)

Yes they do. See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html#h-16.5. Superm401 - Talk 03:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

IFrames are NOT included in the specification for XHTML 1.0 Strict. See http://www.w3.org/ They suggest using the <object> tag instead, but that method isn't supported in all modern browsers. I'll try to find some references and examples for this later on.Peaceoutside 00:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There may be some argument for including some discussion of accessibility issues that can arise with iframes - http://www.webaim.org/techniques/frames/#iframe There aren't insurmountable problems, but there are consideration generally not included in iframe implementations. Samatva (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Groups can no longer use IFrames

I received a message today that is going out to Yahoo Groups users telling them that as of March 26, 2007, "In order to better protect our users against online threats..., we can no longer support IFrames." Users were provided a link to this article to explain what IFrames are.--Hjal 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The full message relevant to IFrames was:

Dear Yahoo! Groups User:

Starting March 26, 2007, you'll notice a few changes when you log into your Group.

- In the past we have allowed group owners to customize their home pages using IFrames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFRAME). In order to better protect our users against online threats (learn more about online threats here: http://security.yahoo.com/), we can no longer support IFrames. If you currently use IFrames to display another web page on your group's home page, it will no longer appear. See the Yahoo! Groups Team blog (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/y_groups_team) to learn what HTML tags are allowed to help personalize your group description.

--68.239.240.144 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a deletion of this section. If other editors think that the second post contains spam, please consider editing out the external link only.--Hjal 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect?

It's been three months. Presumably Yahoo! Groups no longer has this message, so can't we unprotect now? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As no-one has commented on the above for a month, I've unprotected. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's being linked to again Google Maps API Mapplets documentation 354d 05:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification/Need for edit?

I am a bit confused by the following content:

An IFrame can be planted on an unsuspecting legitimate website, leading the casual viewer into an infection threat.

This suggests, to me at least, that an iframe can be used as a sort of virus. More specifically, it sounds as if a black-hat hacker could go to my non-SNS page and simply put a malicious iframe on to my otherwise unsuspecting home page. My basic understanding of html and web publishing makes me think this is not really what the sentence is supposed to mean. However, I could be wrong, and if so, I think the sentence should be more explicit. What I think the sentence is intended to convey is one of two ideas, or both:

1. A casual viewer could visit an otherwise innocent looking site, while this site is actually a malicious site using iframes to harm the user's computer, or
2. A legitimate site, such as Wikipedia or MySpace that allows and encourages open editing could, without the site owners' knowledge, be edited with malicious iframe code.

In any or all of these cases, I think the statement aforementioned needs to be edited for clarity and accuracy. Otherwise, it is not only vague but irresponsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.216.139 (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Their are multiple uses of IFrames in exploits. The two that you mention are correct, but the situation is even worse. See my addition to the article. China Crisis (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)