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

Re: unifying alternate content across embedded content element types

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 04:58:18 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240639c2bf35863f41@[]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 20:55 -0500 UTC, on 2007-07-14, Jon Barnett wrote:

> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

Could you send plain text please? I had to manually repair quote indication
and delete inserted HTML.

> On 7/14/07, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:
>> But context !=
>> alternates/equivalents/fallback. Context is context, and is exactly the
>> same/exactly as useful for whichever equivalent the user happens to access.
> [...] context is often equal to fallback. There are cases where the context
>the fallback would be exactly the same

Could you give an example? I'm having a hard time thinking of one...


> I think better defining the markup for a semantic "equivalent" vs. a
>semantic "alternate" is more useful than defining markup for "long" vs.

Sorry, you've lost me. I don't know what "long vs short" refers to, and don't
understand what "semantic equivalent vs semantic alternate" means.


> Are the contents of <object> an equivalent or a description?  Both, in
>certain cases? 

In HTML 4.01 the content of <object> is the equivalent content: "The user
agent must first try to render the object. It should not render the element's
contents [...] If the user agent is not able to render the object [...] it
must try to render its contents."

I can't really follow what the current HTML5 draft says about this.

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2007 03:02:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:24 UTC