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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:41:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4BD16B37.70402@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On 23.04.2010 02:44, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> practice?
>
> We're talking about plugins here. There are no good authoring practices,
> only bad ones and worse ones.
> ...

Disagreed.

Ian, of course you are entitled to your opinion with respect to plugins 
-- but only as long you separate it from your editorial work for this 
Working Group.

So - if you disagree with Lachlan's proposal (as a *replacement* for the 
example that is currently in the spec) then by all means submit a 
counter proposal.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 09:42:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT