W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 1999

Object element discussion inconsistency in PR

From: Ian Graham <igraham@smaug.java.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:46:00 -0400
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.05.9909211837290.19191-100000@smaug.java.utoronto.ca>
Just before the start of section 13.3.1, the proposed recommendation

  This document does not specify the behavior of OBJECT elements that use
  both the classid attribute to identify an implementation and the data
  attribute to specify data for that implementation. In order to ensure
  portability, authors should use the PARAM element to tell
  implementations where to retrieve additional data.

Which makes complete sense to me. However, at the end of 13.3.1, there is
the following example:

<OBJECT id="clock1"
        data="data:application/x-oleobject;base64, ...base64 data...">
    A clock.

which is syntactically ok but inconsistent with the recommendation
noted above. There is a similar example in Sect 13.3.3.  Given that
the specification recommends against this usage, it might be useful to
change these examples to ones that use PARAM elements to reference/include 

Ian Graham ......................... Centre for Academic Technology
i a n   d o t   g r a h a m    a t    u t o r o n t o   d o t   c a
Information Commons                               Tel: 416-978-4548
University of Toronto                             Fax: 416-978-7705
..................... http://www.utoronto.ca/ian/ .................
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 1999 18:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC