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

Author-friendlier definition of <object> (was Re: fear of "invisible metadata")

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:24:02 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240687c2a6e196a5dc@[192.168.0.102]>
To: public-html@w3.org

At 15:53 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-26, Thomas Broyer wrote:

> 2007/6/26, Sander Tekelenburg:

[...]

>> As to "nested browsing context": I'd have to first understand what is meant
>> with that before I could suggest something that would be understandable to
>> more people.

[...explanation snipped...]

Thank you!

Now that I understand what is meant, "nested browsing context" seems a very
good description :) That leaves the challenge of how to phrase it so that
more authors will easily understand it without needing such an elabroate
explanation.

"Embedded web page" would work ("emedded" and "nested" seem synonimous enough
to me), but perhaps doesn't really cover exactly all that "embedded browsing
context" implies. Does "browsing context" truly mean something else than "web
page"? Is "web page" too vague for UA implementors? Does the spec already
define "web page", and if so, as something else than "browsing context"? Or
is it just a matter of the mindset of the reader that defines which phrase is
understandabler.

Anyway, for now:

[help authors understand <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#the-object>]

   The object element allows for embedding a resource (a file or a web page) in
   a document, which optionally can be defined to be handed off by the UA to a
   plug-in or an external application.

   The (optional) data attribute specifies the address of the file or to be
   embedded web page. Its value must be a URI (or IRI).

   The (optional) type attribute specifies the type of the resource. Its value
   must be a valid MIME type, optionally with parameters. [RFC2046]

   One or both of the data and type attributes must be present.


I feel it could be better still, but as to author readability it seems at
least an improvement. But not using "browsing context" might be a problem for
UA implementors...

(Note that I reverted to "file", because the only reason to explicitly say
"image" was the idea of getting authors to use <object> instead of <img>.
While we're still brainstorming better alternatives to <img> it's easier to
stick with just "file".)


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 16:29:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC