- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:02:05 -0000
- To: www-svg@w3.org
"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:200310140623.h9E6Na701515@djwhome.demon.co.uk... > > > object is not sufficiently specified for this, due to the non-specified > > If that is the case, it needs to be raised against the HTML specification, > as I believe the intention was that OBJECT ought to be able to > replace IMG. Tried that, like most of my communication with the HTML WG, I got no response, as we're not in a phase of XHTML that forces them to respond, there's nothing more I can do. > iframe is also effectively deprecated (it has never been in any strict > version of an HTML standard). Certainly, but that's reasonably academic when the alternatives have insufficient implementation to be used, it's well supported by user agents. > The start of the announcement says that the only exceptions to ActiveX > are where the resource is embedded in the HTML (data: URL) or > where it is invoked by a script that is obtained from the remote site > but not embedded in the HTML. If IFRAMES are a problem, then FRAMES are too, as are lots of other stuff, I agree that depending on interpretations of the patent depends on what's covered. Adobe's advice though makes a lot of sense to me, both HTML and HTML provide mechanisms for adding attributes/elements, the W3 HTML versions are only recommendations, and the W3 HTML recommendations are at variance to the real world situation to the extent of being useless in this area. The ASV viewer only works with UAs which support embed and Adobe's recommendation seems wholly appropriate. Jim.
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 07:05:26 UTC