- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:14:34 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7075
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|NEEDSINFO |
--- Comment #6 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2009-08-31 06:14:33 ---
Quoting from
http://www.w3.org/mid/389DB061A33346478A6C4F633FE6E96F@joe1446a4150a8
------8<------
Speaking of editorial control, I still think
4.8.4 The embed element
now in Working Draft needs to be removed from this main list and moved to be
obsolete.
I see the bug 7075 is stopped due to given opinion that <embed> doesn't do any
harm. Still, I respectfully disagree now more than ever.
Now let's look at this again and decide that <embed> then-innovative and
then-important although ill-specified and documented element msut not even be
considered for support in HTML 5. Sure, old browsers can do it if they think
they need to, but support shall be optional.
It will be possible for an author to find out that <embed> is not supported in
HTML 5 by using an HTML 5 validator. Any authoring tool can produce the
<object> element and supporting <param> pairs to replace any <embed> element.
In fact, for certain media, the tool might generate to <audio> or <video>
elements. So absolutely dropping <embed> will be better and more fun for
everyone involved.
With added depth in the discussion of <canvas> we can also see an important
detail.
If <canvas> is actually presenting any problems with fallback and/or
interpretation by alternative user interface requirements, then <embed> is
totally
impossible.
Thank You and Best Regards,
Joe
------8<------
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 06:14:44 UTC