Re: unifying alternate content across embedded content element types (was Comments on IRC log)

On 7/26/07, Sander Tekelenburg <> 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