- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 23:16:04 -0500
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Hi Karl, On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Karl Dubost wrote: > > (trimming a bit the cc:) > > Doug Schepers (22 août 2007 - 06:25) : >> Finally, since SVG has its own DOM, the tests should include >> access to and from that DOM. I can't think of another example of >> a format that would be embedded in an <object> that also has its >> own DOM, but it could come to pass... what should/could happen >> when HTML is embedded in an HTML <object> element? > > An XHTML (application/xhtml+xml) object included by an object will > have its own XML DOM when embedded in an HTML <object> element. That's true. But I do agree with Doulg that it's a good idea to add SVG (and maybe text/plain and text/html) as another embedded content type. The interesting thing will be to research how far back the support goes (into older versions of these browsers). My goal in this mini-project is to try to determine how far along we are with OBJECT interoperability so that the WG can decide whether to leverage the situation or abandon ship entirely by adding many of the other embedded content and fallback/alternate/equivalent facilities we have been discussing these last few months. I added a page to the wiki[1] to gather more data on the situation. Take care, Rob [1]: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ObjectSupport#preview>
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 04:16:30 UTC