WD-object 22-April-1996

nemo/Joel N. Weber II (devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:32:05 -0500

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:32:05 -0500
Message-Id: <199703300832.DAA10044@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
From: "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: WD-object 22-April-1996

I don't know how useful it is to comment on a draft that's 11 months
old; I don't have a clue what the status of that draft really is...

Does any browser implement that spec as it stands?

As far as I can tell, some of the attributes with the same functionality
have different names for IMG and OBJECT.  Specifically,
<IMG SRC="http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg"
ALT="Small GNU head">
seems to be roughly equivalent to
<OBJECT DATA="http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/graphics/gnu-head-sm.jpg"
STANDBY="Small GNU head">
(It would probably be argued that with OBJECT you should write
TYPE="image/jpeg"; but I really would like to implement a browser
that doesn't see any significant difference between IMG and OBJECT
in terms of what it can or can't display.  I certainly don't intend
to break jpeg display when you disable client-side scripting...)

I don't see why it's nessisary to have yet another name for these
features, since there seems to be a lot of complaining on this
list about how complex HTML is getting.

I'm really dissapointed by the ALIGN values.  The TEXTTOP, TEXTBOTTOM,
etc exist because Netscape implemented things poorly the first time,
and then were concerned about allowing HTML to specify physical layout.
(Of course, I'd be happy if there were an error in my thinking here.)

BORDER, HSPACE, and VSPACE could proably be handled by CSS1 instead of