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

Re: H:TML draft for FPWD consideration - object

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:47:58 -0800
Message-ID: <17486100500946EF8D7F0D9EF00C845E@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Michael\(tm\) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
>  HTML: The Markup Language
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/

Hi Michael(tm),
Nice consolidataion of markup syntax as a 
normative-language-reference. I think since the DOM is such an 
important part of this whole show, that all the html5 DOM interfaces 
should also be given. The goal is a quick shot at function and syntax 
and since scripting is getting so easy and reliable, it seems like 
giving the document DOM interfaces along with the content markup 
syntax might help a lot and also easier to synchronize. Kind of the 
same level as Event-handler attributes?

This complicates things for that document, but it may also help to 
further align terms/categories between other normative html5 
documents.

In the text for <object> has @form been dropped?

Is it reasonable to obsolete an item like @classid and then recommend 
to put
it into a <param> and expect it to be recognized and acted upon by the 
host? For <object> could that possibly be overloading <param> which is 
defined (exclusive?) as being sent to plug-in interfaces, opening for 
possible confusion with name-value pairs used by both? Why does a 
plugin want to know what the author used for @classid?

That would mean the html5 browser for <object> must be setup to 
examine all the <param> keywords and values and figure out what to do 
with some of them. In purity, I think the <param> values are really 
only meant for the object context.
This writuep makes these seem like 'optional' host object attributes 
as well as plugin attributes. That may be fine for <embed> where the 
original parameter string is reformed to look like attributes, and 
this might be recognized as a more simple way to implement <object>. 
But isn't it risky when the host UA also treats these <param>s as 
actionable attributes of the <object> element?

(I thought I understood <object> with @classid was working widely and 
accepted by all, and well documented.)

Is the objective to make <object> look and operate more like <embed>, 
or are they both the same anyway?

Also, I think even this short reference should mention how sandbox 
might affect <object>.

So, I hope we can discuss <object>, although it looks like the most 
simple has taken over - maybe for the best. But even though I may have 
joined late, is there time for discussion on some specific points 
concerning <object>?

Thank You and Best Regards,
Joe
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 22:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC