- 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