- From: Dean Edwards <dean@edwards.name>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:29:42 +0100
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > >>>I fail to see how <object> would make sense here. Could you expand on your >>>proposal? >> >><object name="combo" classid="urn:web-forms2-combobox"> >> <label> or select from the list:</label> >> <select name="combo"> >> <option>Item 1</option> >> <option>Item 2</option> >> <option>Item 3</option> >> </select> >></object> > > > We couldn't use urn: (at least, not without registering a URN namespace). > > But it's an interesting idea. What do others think? > i was going to respond to this email anyway (before i noticed my name with a question mark after it (below)). this whole <object classid="urn:..."> thing is kind of interesting. although i intuitively like it (it's so general) - it has zero semantic meaning (it's so general). because of ian's comments below i'm going to test it.... > > because in IE, the markup you gave above has no <object> element in the DOM. > > This would probably also make making a backwards-compatible version > significantly harder (Dean?). > ian. you are right. i was unaware of this but after testing have discovered that <object> elements do not appear in IE's DOM. i've no idea what the origin of this thread is any more but i suspect we're still on about <select edit>. i prefer the current solution over this one (regardless of IE's inadequacies) because of it's additional semantic value. despite that, this technique introduces all sorts of possibilities. custom widgets anyone? -dean
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2004 14:29:42 UTC