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

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

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:59:26 -0500
Message-ID: <s2u643cc0271004070959na06683ehd1e44d7eb714c17a@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Weekly WG <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM, HTML Weekly Issue Tracker
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

Most definitely support the stance described in this issue.

Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 16:59:58 UTC

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