- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 05:04:00 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 20:38 +0100 UTC, on 2007-07-02, James Graham wrote: > Sander Tekelenburg wrote: >> At 09:43 +0200 UTC, on 2007-07-02, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:02:22 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote: >>>> How realistic is it to expect people to use <object>, given that IE >>>> breaks interoperability? >>> Probably slightly more realistic than expecting people to use a new >>> element that works nowhere. >> >> Could you be a bit more verbose please? I can think of several things you >> might mean, but if I need to guess, I might guess wrong. > > The problem is this: > > <object> works in most browsers except IE > <picture> works in no browsers Proposed new HTML 5 elements like <audio> and <video> only work in one or two browsers today because their developers decided to bother making it work. > A-priori then, since less effort is required to fix the bugs in one > browser than to implement a new element in multiple browsers, it is > better not to introduce the extra complexity of a new element. I remember Chris Wilson saying he will not fix IE bugs if it affects an unspecified number of users. Basically that means that until IE disappears, a new element like <picture> is *way* more realistic than pretending that <object> will ever be interoperable. > Indeed, > <picture> itself may, if specced, still not have identical > implementations in all browsers, so not improving the current situation > at-all. That argument applies to every single element, except that for a new element, that doesn't drag a history of non-interoperability with it, it applies *less*. > There are several ways that this argument could be countered: [...] Agreed. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 03:10:48 UTC