W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Why the "Embedding" attribute set? Why not just use "object"?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:10:50 +1000
Message-ID: <4104BC8A.7040503@iinet.net.au>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

Paul Crowley wrote:
>>http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#whyxhtml2
> 
> I've read that; it explains very well the shortcomings of "<img>", but
> I can' t find any part that explains the advantages of not making
> every image an "<object>".

<object> does not have any semantics associated with it, other than it's 
contents is to be replaced with the resource designated by the data 
attribute.  It does not say anything about what the object represents. 
Instead, it relies on it's containing element, and it's child elements 
to provide the semantics for it's alternate content.

Therefore, it is more semantically correct to say that any element can 
be an object, and that object carries with it the semantics of that 
element.  I've given plenty of examples, so I won't give another.

> ... each element has a distinct, clearly defined role in
> the former example but the one element triples up to play three roles
> in the latter.

What's the point in using an extraneous element (such as <a>, <object>, 
etc.), when all the semantics that it provides can be indicated by the 
presence of attributes in another?

>>The reason is similar for making every element be able to be a link.
> 
> Now I have two mysteries rather than one :-)

Well, if you find that a mystery, perhaps you will a few more when you 
realise that nearly every attribute there is, now applies to nearly 
every element through the Common Collection.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt

http://www.lachy.id.au/
lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 04:11:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:00 GMT