Message-Id: <199610191945.OAA25810@inet.htcnet.com> From: "Carl Morris" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Joined Trill" <email@example.com>, Subject: Re: W3C Object draft; ideological/semantic issue Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:38:17 -0500 | From: Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.NYU.EDU> | To: HTML Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Subject: W3C Object draft; ideological/semantic issue | Date: Saturday, October 19, 1996 1:35 PM | What I'm concerned about is that the examples as they stand legitimize | such statements as "Your browser doesn't support java, get the | latest-greatest-browser 54.36 beta NOW!". Which is something we've been | considering here for a while as well. I don't think we need to encourage | such statements. Even something like "Some useful alternative text here" | would be better than "Your client does not support java applications". Your concern is valid, but I think the reason is that OBJECT is to only be used for content, if your JAVA applet isn't "content" (of which can not usually be replaced with something less) then it probably doesn't belong even when the browser can display it... Weak point I know, it becomes a content battle.... but sometimes I think that's the point the W3C is trying to make.