- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 15:55:36 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:01:38 +0200 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Use case? I was thinking of using <object> in <head> as a way of embedding RDFa or microdata without disturbing the appearance of the page. While RDFa can encode graphs and deep trees in a flat sequence of <link> or <meta> tags, it can be made more pithy by wrapping some elements within other elements - <object> and <param> seemed perfect candidates. For microdata on the other hand, without <object> it seems completely impossible to embed data in the <head> in HTML. And Maceij wrote: > Assuming you accept the explanation that others have given (that > <object> implicitly closes the <head> and starts the <body> in most > browsers), could you please file a bug against the diffs document to > mention this difference? > > Bug filing URL: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG In most browsers as measured by counting the number of vendors perhaps, but in most browsers as measured by counting the number of users it seems not. Filing a bug against html5-diffs seems to beg the bigger question of whether <object> should be allowed inside <head>. I can't find any record of this having been discussed - the HTML5 draft spec seems to have just accepted the behaviour of Opera, Gecko and WebKit, even though it goes against the HTML 4 specification, and against Internet Explorer's behaviour. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but before filing a bug, I think we need to discuss whether that bug should be against html5-diffs or against html5. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 14:57:16 UTC