W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2010

[Bug 9428] Permit <object> to be used without the data or type attribute present

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 03:55:18 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1O1th8-000606-Vc@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #5 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-04-14 03:59:14 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Let's see if I can summarise your long responses into something coherent and  short. 

Don't compare me with those you are in contact with on  IRC day in and day out.
 If i were in their shoes,  I would of coruse have expressed myself more
understated, since almost everything would have been said in advance.

> * Some versions of IE misparse nested <object>s that have these attributes.
> Can you provide some actual examples of real pages that need this <object> hack
> to work right in IE and where the bugs can't be worked around any other way?

What are "real" pages? What is you definition of "need"? Should I have used my
time on developing and sprading the techniques I have in mind instead of paying
attention ot this working group and indeed to HTML5? 

I have made some use of this hack myself. But I don't want to link to my
private business in this bug.

When you speak about "any other way", do you then mean the proprietary
"conditional comments"? I believe that anything that is possible to do via
conditional comments should also be possible in HTML direclty, if it doesn't
create problems.

Clearly, any hack relating to this IE bug, is also possible to solve via
conditional comments. But conditional commenst aren't always necessary to use.

There are hundred of millions of  solutions which serve one OBJECT to IE and
andother to other IEs. Why not support a valid way to do the same?

> * It would allow <object> to be used instead of <span>.
> Just use <span>.

Different content model. OBJECT can contain the things that I want: TABLE, P,
DIV, whatever. SPAN can not. Thus SPAN is not an option. It is quite far
fetches to bring in SPAN here - no relevace what so ever. SPAN is however
related to the IE bug issues. 

EXAMPLE. If you want to do this:

<p>Embedding a small text in this paragrap:
       <object><p>Line 1.<p>Line 2.</object>

then IE doesn't sees it as if a P i a child of a P, and simply rejects to
render the content of the OBJECT. Whereas if you do this, then it  works, in IE
version 6:

<p>Embedding a small text in this paragrap:
       <object><object></object><p>Line 1.<p>Line 2.</object>

Later versions of IE treats OBJECT differently and thus requires the
conditional comments. 

                <object><![if ie]></object><![end if]>

But for the icing of the cake, we need to use a SPAN around the OBJECT (or
perhaps a DIV inside the object):

<p>Foo <span>
                <object><![if ie]></object><![end if]>

So, using <span> instead? No. Not unless you change the content model of
<span>. I see no signs of that.

> * It would allow authors to use a WebKit bug.

I would have to think before I could claim that Webkit is related to this bug.
I only mentioned it because you asked about user agent examples.

> Status: Did Not Understand Request
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: I'm marking this "Did Not Understand Request" because of the request
> for further information regarding the IE bug, which is the only remaining use
> case that might be a reason to allow this.

1. I find it interesting that you are positive towards a IE targeting bug,
while recently were rejecting a Mozilla focused bug.
2. The option to be able to hack Internet Explorer (at least version 6) 
without using conditional comments is a bonus.
3. The "only remaing" - or the real issue - in this bug report is actually what
you referred to as "use span instead". E.g. this allows us to embed a <figure>
element inline - by placing it inside a <object>.

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 Wednesday, 14 April 2010 03:59:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:48 UTC