- From: holly marie <hollymarie@ameritech.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:14:32 -0600
- To: <public-evangelist@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Subject: Re: Backward Compatible Karl writes: > It seems the message didn't have the intended success, which may be a > proof of the difficulty to define the concept. > > I'm struggling with a question for the last month, and I would like > > to hear your opinion on it. > > * What do we mean when we say backward compatible in the context of the Web? A possibility: A web designer/developer would like to be Strict to be Cool. [smile] and follow the rules for HTML 4.01 strict or XHTML1.0 strict, etc. They would like to leave behind the deprecated or proprietary markup. This designer or developer would like to produce well-formed and valid documents for the web, or for their client[s]. The document may need to have any of a variety of rich media file types included in the document[sound, swf, rich media file types, inline or embedded media, etc.] If the designer chooses HTML 4.01 strict or XHTML strict version[s], <object> is the way to go, ... however, is there any other way can this work, when, where, or if <object> is not supported? In this case, the answer may be, there is no way to embed or include media inline, other than <object>, because <embed> was never included in a markup version. > > * How would you define it? Content still delivers or is available to end user. It appears it may have to be via a download or link in those cases where there is no support. holly
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 17:10:08 UTC