W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [XHTML] @show on <a/>

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@tigerstaden.no>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:27:00 +0100
To: dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net>, www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s51z3arj16f2qb@quark>

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:06:34 +0100, dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net>  
wrote:

> If it's for the same reason that target currently exists and you're  
> planning on using <object> like an iframe, then no, that's wrong.
>
> Links are for moving from one resource to another. <object> is for  
> external data that is part of the current resource. If you're changing  
> the source of the <object> data, then you're changing the current  
> resource, and it belongs in the realm of javascript.
>
> ("Resource" here meaning the same thing it does in URL/URI)

Yes, I agree. Changing the representation of a URI without changing the  
URI itself goes against the beautiful one-to-one-relationship between  
resource representation and URI. Breaking this also breaks the back-button  
and cuases all sorts of other problems I don't think the HTML  
specification should build up under.

Getting rid of frames was one step in the right direction, now please  
let's go all the way. Stuff like this belongs in JavaScript or -- I almost  
dare not say it -- stuff like Flash.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 17:27:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:05 GMT