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

Re: Multilanguage alt/title

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:27:14 -0700
Cc: "Gregory J.Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Olivier GENDRIN <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4BF17003-E757-474A-AE35-D675660BE1B4@apple.com>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>

On Aug 29, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Robert Burns wrote:

> Hi Maciej,
> On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Robert Burns wrote:
>>> HI Gregory,
>>> After producing the wiki page on OBJECT element support in the  
>>> latest browsers, I"m even more convinced this is the way to go  
>>> [1]. From the results so far, it seems that every  current browser  
>>> except Safari allows for a simplified  use of the OBJECT element  
>>> (as nearly as simple as the IMG element except that for IE the  
>>> dimensions need to be specified). The OBJECT element is much  
>>> closer to being a replacement for IMG than I would have thought.  
>>> If these bugs in IE (extracting and using the media's intrinsic  
>>> dimensions) and Safari (not even handling this content at all)  
>>> could be worked out, we would be there.
>> Did you find any problems in Safari's support for the OBJECT  
>> element for images? I don't recall you mentioning any.
> Not in the latest nightly builds, but in the release version and  
> even the publicly released beta, it does not adjust the OBJECT  
> generated box to the intrinsic dimensions of the media.

I believe it does size properly to intrinsic size of an image in  
Safari 2, but I could be wrong. In any case, you can expect the  
official Safari 3 release to be more like current nightlies than like  
the beta.

>> The problems with audio/video are a bug in the quicktime plugin - I  
>> hope that can be fixed soon but in the meantime you can duplicate  
>> the data attribute in a <param name="src"> to work around it. In  
>> any case they would not affect the use of OBJECT for images.
> Thanks for that information. I'll update the wiki with that  
> information. I understand that it would not effect images since  
> they're handled by WebKit internally. However, the same problem  
> Gregory is talking about gets repeated for video and audio since we  
> have a non-standard EMBED element that authors often turn to because  
> the implementation of OBJECT (in both browsers and handler UAs) is  
> inadequate. Again the non-standard EMBED element provides no  
> mechanism for alternate equivalent fallback in the contents of the  
> element.

I think the HTML5 recommendation will be to use <audio> and <video>  
for audio and video when possible. These provide for fallback content.  
Apple also has a proposal in the works for selecting one of several  
media items for <audio>/<video> based on accessibility considerations.

<embed> is there primarily for content handled by plugins. The best  
plugin markup for degrading gracefully in a wide variety of browsers  
nests <embed> in <object>, and it would be unfortunate to make such  
markup non-conforming, even if you can use <object> alone to target  
newer browsers only.

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 02:27:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC