[Bug 6102] Please do not break applet element in HTML 5

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6102


Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |hsivonen@iki.fi




--- Comment #4 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>  2008-09-22 09:39:32 ---
So the spec is expected to recount in detail how <applet> works in browser
implementations but then make it non-conforming to author (i.e. say that
validators must flag <applet> as an error).

There are various things to consider:

 1) We might want to try to push people to use technologies that are contained
in browsers (JS plus browser-provided APIs) instead of Java, Flash or
Silverlight (in order to promote code that works anywhere that a full browser
engine runs including devices like Wii, N800 or the iPhone).

 2) One might argue that it's politically wrong for Java to have its own
element when Flash and Silverlight don't.

 3) According to Sun's documentation, <applet> works better cross-browser than
<object> for instantiating Java.

 4) Anecdotally, current practice seems to favor <applet>. (I haven't actually
analyzed Web pages systematically to verify this.)

 5) <video> was introduced because making <object> have many context-dependent
JS APIs was considered bad. Wouldn't the same argument apply to having a
specialized element for Java applets instead of trying to put everything into
<object>?

So what's the real motivation for making <applet> non-conforming? If it is to
make people avoid technology that isn't built-in to the interoperable platform
(point 1), does it work towards that goal? That is, will obsoleting <applet>
for the purpose of conformance make people use applets less? Or will some
people switch to <object> and others continue to use <applet>? Does switching
to <object> benefit anyone considering points 3, 4 and 5?

Should point 2 matter? Perhaps in retrospect, having a special element for Java
isn't politically right, but can't we just grandfather it in for historical
reasons and not bother people about switching to <object>? Also, now that HTML5
makes <embed> *conforming*, the spec effectively has an element that is there
primarily to enable Flash. (Take a look at the installed plug-ins of a normal
user. Then take away Java which has <applet>. Then take away plug-ins that will
be obsoleted by <video>. What's left?)

(Note: I don't have any interest in *promoting* Java applets. In fact, I've
never seen an applet that wouldn't have been more appropriate either as a Java
Web Start app, as a JavaScript/<canvas> app or as a native browser feature. I'm
looking at this from the point of view of a validator developer, and bothering
people about switching from <applet> to <object> doesn't seem productive.)


-- 
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 Monday, 22 September 2008 09:40:10 UTC