Ben Meadowcroft wrote: >J. King wrote: > > >>It's been discussed that markup can easily be either too short or too >>long. >> >> >>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? > > > It's a whole 3 characters that wouldn't have to be typed all the time. Good enough reason to change it I'd say. <Arthur/>Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 19:38:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:59:21 GMT