Re: [WSG] killing the object tag
Alan Trick wrote: When (if)? IE supports HTML it may still want to be able to support it's old buggy . Just look at all their CSS bugs they have in the name of 'backwards-compatibily' and 'consistancy'. But that's my point: XHTML 2 as a specification is not meant to be backwards compatible, so there's no excuse or reason for saying "our XHTML 2 implements it this way so that older browsers can access it as well". -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] killing the object tag
Thanks for the link Richard. I just looked one the www-html mailing list and there was an argument about this in 2003, but it kind of died in the middle without any resolution. I guess the biggest reason would be because I don't like to type a lot of extra code for no reason. esspecially with tags that aren't used very often. It increases the length of my code (making it more work to read) and leads to more spelling mistakes. When (if)? IE supports HTML it may still want to be able to support it's old buggy . Just look at all their CSS bugs they have in the name of 'backwards-compatibily' and 'consistancy'. Alan BTW, Xsmiles: http://www.x-smiles.org/ has preliminary support for XHTML2 Patrick H. Lauke wrote: XHTML 2 is not meant to be backwards compatible. As IE doesn't officially support XHTML 2 at all (as, to my knowledge, no browser does natively), this discussion is irrelevant, IMHO. XHTML 2 should not be sent to anything other than user agents which (will eventually) support it. Any similarities between XHTML 2 and XHTML 1.x are purely coincidental, if you will. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] killing the object tag
Alan Trick wrote: XHTML 2 is going to get rid of the tag, which I think is good. [...] it's practically impossible to use it for anything useful as long as your clients are using IE. Alan, XHTML 2 is not meant to be backwards compatible. As IE doesn't officially support XHTML 2 at all (as, to my knowledge, no browser does natively), this discussion is irrelevant, IMHO. XHTML 2 should not be sent to anything other than user agents which (will eventually) support it. Any similarities between XHTML 2 and XHTML 1.x are purely coincidental, if you will. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] killing the object tag
> What do you guys think of this? Is their somewhere I can > submit this too? >From http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/ "Public discussion may take place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (archive). To subscribe send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word subscribe in the subject line." hth RI ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
[WSG] killing the object tag
XHTML 2 is going to get rid of the tag, which I think is good. is a far better tag mainly because of it's fallback options, but the problem with object is that is has a very messed up history and as a result, it's practically impossible to use it for anything useful as long as your clients are using IE. IE doesn't support and if you try to do something like it inserts nasty scroll bars. is also associated with ActiveX so if you have security levels above normal, IE will issue a security warning even if your just trying to display a poor little png. So here is my suggestion: Let's change to for XHTML 2. 1. Standards-compliant browsers can support it very easily because they already have support of object, they can just transfer it. 2. On older versions of IE (or any browser), it will just go to the fallback solution, which is good because wasn't ever any good in IE anyways. I'm assuming people with other browsers can easily update it. 3. IE will have to redo there support at some point anyways. This will will allow them to do that without breaking bugwards compatibility. Something they are ever so committed to. 4. It's 4 characters shorter. 5. not as important, but can we change 'data' to 'src'. data is confusing because it isn't consistent with the other elements. What do you guys think of this? Is their somewhere I can submit this too? Alan Trick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
