- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:57:29 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, HTMLWG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no> wrote: > Boris Zbarsky 2009-03-26 17.05: >> >> Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > >>> http://www.malform.no/html5/object+youtube > >>> We also know that this pattern isn't use because one has corresponding >>> fallback text. >> >> This part I don't follow. > > The reason people insert <embed> into <object> is not to offer textual > fallback alongside <embed>. If they try that, then <embed> would only get in > the way since those who need textual fallback do not need/want the content > of <embed>. Thus we may conclude - as I did above - that the purpose of > adding <embed> is to use it as the sole fallback content of <object>. It seems to me that the problem here is that <embed> doesn't have a good fallback story. So people that fall back to <embed> are left with a dead end. Unfortunately there seems to be enough advantages with falling back to <embed> that people do it anyway. Those advantages being that you can often (at least in old browsers) get the plugin you are trying to use working, even if it didn't work in the <object>. Hopefully this can be reduced if newer browsers support <object> better. As Boris said. I think a new thread should be created with specific suggestions for changes we want to the HTML5 draft. For example deprecating <embed>. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 18:58:21 UTC