- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:39:48 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5846
Hallvord R. M. Steen <hallvord@opera.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
--- Comment #6 from Hallvord R. M. Steen <hallvord@opera.com> 2008-07-16 09:39:47 ---
> Is there any evidence showing that people actually _do_ specify
> <param>s for HTML and SVG objects?
No. I looked and I could not find any. However, there is not much authoring
practise on HTML+SVG OBJECTs on the web yet. Points to consider:
* This issue comes from an author request. An early deployer points out that
the spec has a hole because he fell into it - counts for something, no?
* While there is no such HTML+SVG usage that I could find, the proposed
feature is very similar to Flash's "flashvars" PARAM. There's precedence for
simplifying "markup -> script inside OBJECT" communication when you consider
<param name="flashvars"> and this is very, very common in real-life usage.
Using postMessage here seems like a lot of overhead and "scaffolding" for a
very simple use case.
> Completeness isn't compelling
I agree with that. I think feature parity with plugin implementation matters
though - including comparing SVG features to Flash features.
I take the liberty of re-opening this again, I hope you find the arguments
compelling enough for another consideration..
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 09:40:29 UTC