- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:42:11 -0400
Jim Ley wrote:
>> I think it's pretty clear that any WHAT WG markup we come up with
>>needs to work in IE using HTC and/or Javascript, NOT A PLUG-IN.
>
> So you wish to specifically exclude the plug-in approach, why do you
> wish to do this?
Plug-ins are fine, but they can't be the primary solution. It's a
matter deployment. Most browsers are IE6 with Javascript enabled, so an
HTC will work without any special permission or effort from the user. A
plug-in requires the user to download and install it, which may not be
possible or may be forbidden in some environments. Therefore, if someone
creates a plug-in, good for them, but we can't rely on the plug-in for
support of WHAT WG standards on IE.
> In any case, whether plug-ins are relevant or not to the approach, it
> doesn't invalidate the point I was making. The argument against
> OBJECT so far relies on a particular DOM issue in a particular
> environment against an assumption of a particular style of script
> support, that should not be sufficient reason to reject it.
If we can't use <object> with an HTC, that means that the vast
majority of the computing population will not be able to use WF2 and
other standards without special effort on their part. That's plenty of
reason not to use it.
>>By
>>contrast, most of those browser have Javascript on and support HTC.
>
> Er, no, only a couple of versions of 1 browser family support HTC's
> (and even then they can be disabled seperately from the rest of
> javascript. javascript alone has hugely better support than HTC's
If you go by the percentage of USERS, most of them are using IE6
with Javascript enabled. That means HTC.
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 10:42:11 UTC