- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:21:47 +0100
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:51:50 +0100, Dean Edwards <dean at edwards.name> wrote: > >> I've done that, so far it's being rejected primarily because it is not > >> supportable by HTC's! > > > > it was rejected because the <object> element does not reside in the DOM. Which is purely related to HTC's since inline script legacy support is fine here, or even HTC's with a simple extra convention as exampled in my previous post. Let me clarify the advantages of the OBJECT approach as I see them: They'll work with HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 content, no need for people to learn new elements, or a new DTD at the top, which also means no need to get a new validator (or convince the validator people to all update their packaged DTD's etc.), in fact no need to write a new DTD. All in all much less new stuff to do. They allow people to degrade the content in any way they see fit, they can provide better input elements than a text element to anyone, even without using any script, or even just by using their existing scripts, the pages could in fact be modified purely by wrapping parts in OBJECT elements. Doesn't overload the input element, this simplifies the server portion of the script, it knows if it's getting the object named submission or the legacy content, so can immediately fork the validation routines there. They should be simpler for the WF2 client, as it knows valid input will a valid ISO date time for example. Accessibility is improved, you can provide user help with entering the data only in the legacy case - very important as we have seen with datetime, where so far the fallback is rudimentary at best. It can be implemented easily in binary plug-in extension - I realise this isn't a requirement, but a binary plugin for IE would be much better than a script one, with the new element approach, the only option is a binary behaviour, and they need author support so to get into the page. OBJECT doesn't have any such limitation. and the disadvantage of this mark-up ? Oh yeah - it doesn't appear in the IE6 DOM. there are probably others, but I've not been able to think of any - and I'm pretty pessimistic about proposals, as I'm sure people have seen. Comments in CIWAH seem to agree with me: see message id: er8of0pojpnri5urc4ima5307q4jqjqrte at 4ax.com I really think this should be reconsidered, and proper arguments favouring new elements, and overriding input further be looked at against this. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 14:21:47 UTC