- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:32:53 +0200
- To: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:39:49 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote: > At 14:54 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-25, Simon Pieters wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:09:48 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> >>> And the spec's definition of <object> is rocket science to most >>> authors. >> >> Not really. <img src=foo alt=fallback> -> <object >> data=foo>fallback</object> > > Try to read the definition for <object> as if you're an average web > publisher and have never heard of it before. Yeah, the HTML 4 spec makes it seem nightmarish. The fact the IE support for it is horrid (for simple things) meant that there was not much motivation to explain it, and people neveer really picked up on it. And allowing the author to require a particular plugin to render the content it included was a big mistake. All that said, it *may* be the easiest thing to use if we want an image that has better fallback. Depends on IE though. ChrisW? Cheers -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:33:06 UTC