W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Object Element Re: WaSP Asks the W3C (2005)

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:12:28 -0400
Message-Id: <18480D15-C898-47A0-B50C-076AB85DBE91@w3.org>
Cc: "'public-evangelist@w3.org' w3. org" <public-evangelist@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>

Le 05-05-25 à 09:40, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> Karl Dubost wrote:
>>> I was wondering how OBJECT is supposed to work in future  
>>> versions  of XHTML when XHTML 2.0 changes the name of the DATA  
>>> attribute to  SRC. Also, how relevant is OBJECT in XHTML 2.0?
>> I think this has already been discussed on www-html, I encourage  
>> you  to read the thread starting at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2004Jul/thread.html#6
> I was pointing out something completely different, not?

So your first question is not clear? If you ask how object will work  
with src attribute, I would say by implementing it, but stating the  
obvious doesn't make sense.
If your question is "Where are the implementations of XHTML 2.0?".  
XHTML 2.0 is still WD, in the process of being a Last Call. The next  
step after the Last Call for such a specification is CR (Candidate  
Recommendation) where people are trying to implement the  
specification and produce an implementation report.

For example VoiceXML 2.0 Implementation Report:

> This also doesn't answer the second question.

I don't understand the second question? If you talk about the  
semantics of this element, Masayasu Ishikawa has answered in the tread.

> This was in response to the article on the WaSP site which asked  
> for comments on this particular mailing list and I was wondering  
> how they could state that OBJECT is forward compatible when it isn't.

That's an interesting problem not related to object. How do you  
define "forward compatible" and "backward compatible"?

(My personal opinion, not W3C, on that is that most of the time it's  
an illusion for _any_ technologies, if you really dig out the concept.)

> I was talking about HTML4 here. I certainly hope XHTML2 will just  
> break on <b> <i> </b> </i>.

Error Mechanism for HTML 4.01 is defined in
Though it's not normative.

For XHTML 2.0, do you mean the presence of non well-formed foreign  
XHTML 2.0 is a format, not a user agent, therefore it will not break.

You mean that a non well-formed document that is supposed to be XHTML  
2.0 will not be rendered or displayed properly because of XML parsers  
rules? Developers might adopt some XML Error reporting techniques, I  

See Dave Hyatt's messages about that in the past.

If you want it to be something mandatory in XHTML 2.0, I invite you  
again to send an email to www-html-editor@w3.org

Best Regards.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 14:13:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:19 UTC