Re: handling fallback content for still images

On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:58 PM, Smylers wrote:
> Robert Burns writes:
>> For compatibility. There may be other reasons too, but foremost we
>> should be a good citizen in the XML community.
> Why?  That isn't in our design principles, let alone the "foremost"
> principle which should override others; compatibility with existing
> browsers is in there.

I was using foremost as in the foremost reason for doing this (this  
being trying to be compatible and degrade gracefully when <img>  
elements have content) is to be a good XML citizen. I clearly wasn't  
saying  this was a foremost thing this WG should do.

> Though if that is our foremost aim, we should probably also change  
> this
> in the spec:
>   Generally speaking, authors are discouraged from trying to use  
> XML on
>   the Web

I would agree. It is very heavy-handed for a recommendation to tell  
authors what serialization they should use or to even go out of its  
way to deprecate other W3C recommendations. Also it fails to  
recognized how widespread XML is already on the web: though not  
necessarily as a document or web page delivery format. However, the  
way it is stated it sounds like XML in general is discouraged on the  
web. That would imply no SOAP, no XML-RPC, no Atom, no WebDAV,  
CalDAV, no XSLT,, etc.. XML has swept over the web in the last  few  
years. I expected that line has been in the draft a long time and  
just hasn't yet been removed. Regardless, one can already see how  
dated a statement like that can become in even a few years of  
developing a draft. Its definitely not the kind of statement we would  
want to leave in there if we expected our recommendation to be read  
and relevant for any length of time.

Take care,

Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 10:51:31 UTC