Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 03:32:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199703300832.DAA10044@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> From: "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.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 OBJECT.