W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2000

Re: XHTML 1.1

From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:28:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <387B8440.F02CCC0F@aptest.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
I cannot speak for the HTML Working Group, but...

My recollection is that the working group felt objects semantics were
under specified, its functionality overloaded, and its support spotty.
Rather than try to improve it and break what little support there is,
the working group elected to avoid it in XHTML 1.1. We hope that other
XHTML-conforming modules will come along with improved functionality for
the things that object was intended to be a generic tool for (like SVG
for vector graphics, SYMM for multimedia, etc.).

Note also that there is an Object module in XHTML Modularization, and
that markup-language authors and browser vendors are free to support
this module. We just don't think there are reasonable portability
guarantees for things brought in with object, so we left it out of XHTML

At least, that is my recollection and opinion.

> why is the object module [1] not part of XHTML 1.1 DTD [2]? I thought the
> object element was to replace img, applet, iframe, ... in order to have a
> more generic element for multimedia inclusion.

Shane P. McCarron                  phone: +1 612 434-4431
ApTest                               fax: +1 612 434-4318
                                  mobile: +1 612 799-6942
                                  e-mail: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 09:45:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:52 UTC