- 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
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