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

Re: IE's AND EVERYONE ELSE'S object implementation problems (was RE: Baby Steps or Backwards Steps?)

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:16:04 -0500
Message-Id: <E84E8256-983A-44E3-A24B-1FD2E03C8B99@robburns.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>

Hi Karl,

On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Karl Dubost wrote:

>
> (trimming a bit the cc:)
>
> Doug Schepers (22 août 2007 - 06:25) :
>> Finally, since SVG has its own DOM, the tests should include  
>> access to and from that DOM.  I can't think of another example of  
>> a format that would be embedded in an <object> that also has its  
>> own DOM, but it could come to pass... what should/could happen  
>> when HTML is embedded in an HTML <object> element?
>
> An XHTML (application/xhtml+xml) object included by an object will  
> have its own XML DOM when embedded in an HTML <object> element.

That's true. But I do agree with Doulg that it's a good idea to add  
SVG (and maybe text/plain and text/html) as another embedded content  
type.

The interesting thing will be to research how far back the support  
goes (into older versions of these browsers).

My goal in this mini-project is to try to determine how far along we  
are with OBJECT interoperability so that the WG can decide whether to  
leverage the situation or abandon ship entirely by adding many of the  
other embedded content and fallback/alternate/equivalent facilities  
we have been discussing these last few months.

I added a page to the wiki[1] to gather more data on the situation.

Take care,
Rob

[1]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ObjectSupport#preview>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 04:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC