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

Re: What <object> represents in different views (detailed review of Semantics)

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:18:07 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240663c2ff9328482e@[]>
To: <public-html@w3.org>

At 21:10 +0200 UTC, on 2007-09-01, Simon Pieters wrote:

> (This is part of my detailed review of the Semantics and structure of HTML
> elements section.)
> The spec says about <object>:
>     In the absence of other factors (such as style sheets), user agents
>     must show the user what the object element represents. Thus, the
>     contents of object elements act as fallback content, to be used only
>     when referenced resources can't be shown (e.g. because it returned a
>     404 error). This allows multiple object elements to be nested inside
>     each other, targeting multiple user agents with different capabilities,
>     with the user agent picking the best one it supports.

{frown} how does the UA decide on "best"?

> However, what about the case where the UA supports the primary format but
> it can't be "shown" in a particular view (e.g. an image when reading the
> document aloud)? Shouldn't the fallback be used in such cases, just like
> alt="" would be used for <img>?

That's certainly what most would expect, yes. I don't know why the spec
specifically and only lists 404s as an excuse to fallback. Surely the reason
a resource isn't presented is irrelevant? When it isn't presented, the UA
must fallback to the <object>'s contents.

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Saturday, 1 September 2007 22:18:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC