Re: ISSUE-107 Change Proposal: Replace <object> fallback example

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 22.04.2010 14:15, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > This is an alternate change proposal for ISSUE-107.
> > > ...
> > 
> > Thanks Lachlan.
> > 
> > Chairs: I think this is superior to my original proposal; should I retract
> > that?
> If no one prefers your original, then sure.
> At this point I'd ask: does anyone object to Lachlan's alternative?

I would be happy to add the example Lachlan proposes. I object to removing 
the example being discussed. There are a number of examples of <object> in 
the spec, covering a variety of different ways of giving fallback:

 * showing fallback that offers that the user download the data for use 
   with a local app, or that the user use an online version of the tool, 
   without mentioning the plugin at all

 * showing not offering fallback at all

 * showing a useless comment typical on the Web, saying that the plugin is 
   not installed or is disabled, with no proposed alternative

 * showing not needing to offer fallback because the type is known to be 

 * showing offering fallback using native HTML features and thus not 
   needing to mention the plugin

 * showing an honest message equivalent to the useless comment mentioned 
   above (this is the one being objected to)

Lachlan's proposal adds a seventh example that is not redundant with the 
ones above, and as such would be a reasonable thing to add, IMHO.

There are various examples which are only in the WHATWG version of the 
spec for various reasons, such as examples that use HTML5 features and are 
excluded from the W3C version due to the ridiculous rules about the W3C 
not wanting to use HTML5. If we want to continue the trend of making W3C 
copy a smaller and smaller subset of the HTML spec hosted on the WHATWG 
site, I don't mind hiding the controversial example from the W3C copy. 
However, there comes a point where if we keep taking things out when 
anyone is in the least bit offended by it (microdata, vocabs, ping="", 
examples, etc) that the W3C copy will basically be pointless: the least 
offensive common denominator. Attrition by committee.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 22:04:55 UTC