W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

<object> attributes (Was: Versioning and html[5])

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:23:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0704122015000.13484@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> I note, for example, that the WHATWG HTML5 removes a few key attributes 
> from the <object> element that were in HTML 4.01 - namely, classid and 
> codebase - that are heavily used by ActiveX in IE.  (And y'all seem to 
> get quite upset when we add proprietary features and attributes.)

IE doesn't use the HTML4 classid= and codebase= attributes. It uses 
proprietary attributes that happen to have names that clash with those in 
hte HTML4 spec. What I mean by this is that the IE implementation is in 
direct violation with the HTML4 spec on this matter, thus preventing 
anyone from implementing the HTML4 spec. That's why we took the feature 
out of HTML5. It doesn't affect the conformance of pages using the 
features, because those pages were _already_ non-conformant, they just 
weren't getting caught by the HTML4 validator.

Regarding the actual feature implemented in IE: ActiveX is a proprietary 
platform-dependent feature. A platform-independent specification intended 
to be implemented on multiple devices cannot condone such a feature, in 
my opinion. Nothing stops IE from supporting the non-standard attributes 
as it does today, but it isn't something we should encourage as it merely 
results in increased vendor lock-in (forcing people to use Windows).

People get upset when browsers add proprietary features and attributes 
without clearly marking them as such, but they get even more upset when 
attributes in the standard are coopted for proprietary features.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 20:23:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:53 GMT