W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Shorten <object> in XHTML 2.0?

From: Jason M. Kikta <kiktajm@muohio.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:15:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3EFE3DAF.6000900@muohio.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org

Well, it's not so much the three characters. The most important thing is 
to break backwards-compatibility with <object>. This is a smart move, 
because if we dump <img>, then the problem isn't with browsers that 
don't understand using object for images, it's the ones that try to do 
it and are _broken_, such as IE.

IE is so horribly broken in this respect, it would be better to prevent 
authors from trying to make it work and going crazy in the attempt (it 
is rather futile, I have yet to see anyone accomplish it in any 
reasonable way). That alone should be reason, the three less letters is 
just icing on the cake.  :-)


Ben Meadowcroft wrote:

> J. King wrote:
>>It's been discussed that markup can easily be either too short or too
>>Since <object> is likely to be used quite extensively in XHTML 2.0, it
>>would seem to be preferable to shorten it to something like <obj>,
>>which can still be rather easily decyphered--more easily than some
>>old HTML elements and attributes, even.  Given the nature of <object>
>>and its new importance, cutting the extra three character would make
>>inserting images into XHTML 2.0 documents less of a chore than it
>>would otherwise have to be.
>>Though since <object> is already well established, this would make
>>transition a little less obvious, but things are getting seriously
>>jumbled and rearranged anyway--would it not be a reasonable change?
> No, it's only three characters for goodness sake, why bother?
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2003 21:13:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:04 UTC