W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: ISSUE-107 Change Proposal

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:30:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4BC7310F.8060900@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 14.04.2010 21:54, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> On 2010-04-13 20:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> A more realistic example would use fallback text with instructions about
>>> where to actually get the plugin.
>>> Such as:
>>> <object type="application/vnd.o3d.auto">
>>> <param name="o3d_features" value="FloatingPointTextures">
>>> This page requires the use of the FOOBAR O3D plugin. Get it
>>> from the<a href="...">FOOBAR O3D Download Page</a>.
>>> </object>
>> I don't agree with the content of this proposed change because it
>> encourages the kind of useless fallback content that should be
>> discouraged.  The ideal fallback should instead provide some kind of
>> alternative content, or at least a link to some sort of substitute for
>> the missing content.  Including the advice to obtain the plugin in
>> addition to that would be acceptable, but consider how useless such
>> advice would be on its own, on most devices other than desktop
>> computers, like mobile phones, set top boxes, TVs, etc.
> Exactly. The text proposed above is exactly the same as the text in the
> spec now, except it's less honest about it.

"Honesty" really is totally irrelevant here.

We are giving an example for fallback content. This is not the place to 
promote a "plugins are bad" point of view. You're free to argue this 
point, but the HTML5 spec is not the place for it.

A typical example for fallback content in <object> *are* instructions 
where to obtain the plugin. The text we currently have, on the other hand:

     This page requires the use of a proprietary technology. Since you
     have not installed the software product required to view this
     page, you should try visiting another site that instead uses open
     vendor-neutral technologies.

definitively is not typical (*) -- why would an author of a web page 
*ever* want to refer people to competing offerings?

Best regards, Julian

(*) If you disagree, how about providing a real-world example?
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 15:31:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC