- 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