- From: Jon Barnett <jonbarnett@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:01:19 -0500
- To: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On 7/26/07, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote: > > As explained, what it provides over <object> is that <object> is broken in IE > and therefore no option to authors. And as long as Chris Wilson continues his > silence, there is no reason to expect he'll ever fix IE. A new element, not > burdened with the history of <object>, <image> and <img> would seem to stand > a better chance then. (Personally I'd prefer <object>, provided the spec > would be made author-understandable, but I don't see the Web's IE-dependancy > change substantially any time soon.) > What would be better about <picture>? Today's MSIE halfway supports <object>, but may fully support <object> in the future. Today's MSIE doesn't support <picture>, but may fully support <picture> in the future. The only problem with <object> in IE today is that it doesn't fall back properly. I'm sure that can be fixed faster than asking for support for a whole new element. I think we agree that <object> is better - I just don't see how MSIE today is an argument *against* it. -- Jon Barnett
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 03:01:22 UTC