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

Re: ISSUE-95 hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals - off topic object

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:02:37 -0800
Message-ID: <C14B19EA8FC548019B8CEC543E715DC8@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, <public-html@w3.org>
> Yes, you are off. @declare is a boolean attribute in HTML4.

sorry to go off topic. No wonder it never worked as I expected.

rereading I see I had recalled id wrong. id was the ref when you 
wanted to turn it on.
Dropping declare should make it run if complete enough to run, 
otherwise fallback.
Two other ways were shown in the standard
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.3.4

The first example instantiated the object by href in an <a>. The 
object should appear when clicked, I think.

The second example used the declare to carry some common parameters, 
then instantiate a version with special parameters for content. Maybe 
nice keystroke saver if many mostly common objects. Will more than one 
instance work? I never found out. Did either of those 13.3.4 Object 
declarations and instantiations examples ever work anywhere?  I tried 
them both jun 23 1998 and never got to follow up.

> There should be no reason to doubt that the OBJECT in this example 
> would render if @declare was removed.

Right. Of course, but then the instance requested in the <a> would 
never appear? Or would the <a> work and <object> be available both 
places? With no declare, I think the <a> should fail (do nothing 
because no valid href target).

Same in second example. If you undeclare what I might call sort of the 
object prototype, then
it, or its fallback if not enough info, should likely appear,  and the 
instance(s) may fallback due to lack of some info or otherwise. Me not 
know:)
However, it is an interesting example of how <object> could work and 
pass parameters. Also shows param with three attrs.
<PARAM name="font" valuetype="object" value="#tribune">

I think it would be the wrong reason to drop @datatype and @type from 
<param>  if it was thought to be only used with declare. The default 
is "string" and is there any use to providing the valuetype="ref" 
option in <param>? REF specifies that the string should be treated as 
a URI. Plugins use <param> to hold resource URL but always that I have 
seen as just a string. Is being able to interpret @value as a URI 
rather than a string important now? If so, then is @type in <param> 
usable?

Thanks Again,
Joe 
Received on Saturday, 30 January 2010 03:03:16 GMT

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