- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:02:01 +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: > Try to read the definition for <object> as if you're an average web > publisher > and have never heard of it before. You'll get lost in a truckload of > attributes and sub elements and their attributes, and nowhere do you get > a > clear hint that any of it can and is allowed to be used for images. Let's see, then. Element-specific attributes for <img>: alt, src, usemap, ismap, height, width Element-specific attributes for <object>: data, type, usemap, height, width Hmm, <object> actually has fewer attributes than <img>. To be fair, <object> can also have <param>s, but you probably don't need to pass parameters to images. The spec says about <object>: The object element can represent an external resource, which, depending on the type of the resource, will either be treated as an image, as a nested browsing context, or as an external resource to be processed by a third-party software package. The data attribute, if present, specifies the address of the resource. If present, the attribute must be a URI (or IRI). There it explicitly calls out images as the first example of what you can use <object> for. And that you use data="" to point to it. I don't know how it can be made clearer. Suggestions? > Talk with web publishers. Ok. I asked a web publisher if he knew what <object> was for. He said for e.g. flash and video. I asked whether images would work, and he said certainly, but he didn't know how exactly. After some quick testing he figured it out. Then I pointed him to the HTML5 spec and asked him, after reading it, if it was clear how it's supposed to work, and he said yes. > Most do not understand <object> at all. That may well be true. > [...] > >> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_21.html >> >> Now "<image>" is parsed as if it were "<img>" in browsers (and per >> HTML5). > > Why was it given up on? Don't know. >> So <image> can't be used. > > Well, then perhaps <picture>fallback<picture>, or <pic>fallback</pic>, > for > less typing ;) I don't think that adding more elements for including images will improve interop or reduce confusion. -- Simon Pieters
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 15:02:04 UTC