W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org > April 2010

ISSUE-107 (plugin-fallback-example): Politics in fallback example for plugin usage [HTML 5 spec]

From: HTML Weekly Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:09:59 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org
Message-Id: <20100407110959.98569DEE8C@lowblow.w3.org>

ISSUE-107 (plugin-fallback-example): Politics in fallback example for plugin usage [HTML 5 spec]

http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/107

Raised by: Julian Reschke
On product: HTML 5 spec

Escalated from bugzilla: <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8784>

The spec currently currently has the following example:

<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<html lang="en">
 <head>
  <title>O3D test page</title>
 </head>
 <body>
  <p>
   <object type="application/vnd.o3d.auto">
    <param name="o3d_features" value="FloatingPointTextures">
    This page requires the use of a proprietary technology. Since you
    have not installed the software product required to view this
    page, you should try visiting another site that instead uses open
    vendor-neutral technologies.
   </object>
   <script src="o3dtest.js"></script>
  </p>
 </body>
</html>

(see <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-param-element>)

The problem with the fallback text is that it's not a good example at all; it just transports an anti-plugin point of view. Why would *anybody* *ever* put that text into a page?

A more realistic example would use fallback text with instructions about where to actually get the plugin.
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 11:10:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:29 UTC