W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-107 Change Proposal: Replace <object> fallback example

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:30:30 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0D369B50-B3C3-4ECD-9F38-ADE6A284C779@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
<chair hat off>

Hi Ian,

On Apr 22, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> I would be happy to add the example Lachlan proposes. I object to  
> removing
> the example being discussed. There are a number of examples of  
> <object> in
> the spec, covering a variety of different ways of giving fallback:

It seems like some of these examples are not approaches that we should  
be recommending to authors. In particular:

> * showing not offering fallback at all
> * showing a useless comment typical on the Web, saying that the  
> plugin is
>   not installed or is disabled, with no proposed alternative
> * showing an honest message equivalent to the useless comment  
> mentioned
>   above (this is the one being objected to)

What is the purpose of the above three examples? It seems like they  
would only be helpful as examples of what *not* to do.

Are there other examples in the spec that illustrate a poor authoring  

Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 00:31:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC