- From: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:31:15 +0100
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>
David, you fail to address the query you highlight: "Is there a good reason CSS does not cover this issue?" is there a technical or other good reason beyond the historical artefact is already stated. clearly many users might prefer to hide flash on a site by site basis via there browser and quite likely a user style sheet. regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 30 Jul 2007, at 08:33, David Woolley wrote: ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: > this seems to be counter-intuitive, and a resolution by file type > seems feasible or possibly even near-trivial. > Is there a good reason CSS does not cover this issue? You are taking a view that represents a popular misconception that web standard define the complete browser as a multimedia presentation engine, and which leads to people asking about Flash on www-html. In its original concept, HTML provided glue to ease the navigation to resources in many different forms. Commercialisation has led to something of a compound document concept and special sorts of links that result in concurrent rendering of linked resources. However, the fact still remains that, if you link to (embed, access with object) resources rendered by third party products, you cannot expect those third party products to fully integrate with the W3C technologies in the core product. If HTML had been designed as a multimedia presentation tool, it would be different, but it might also not exist at all, because it would have been in direct competition with tools better at doing that job at the time it was invented. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 12:31:23 UTC