- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:02:22 +0000
>> >> I think we have then arrived at tags-for-everything. >> (<img><video><audio><embed><iframe> cover everything do they not?) > > Oh no, there are many more types of media that exist or can exist. > <3d>, > <smell>, <animation>, <tactile>... some media don't exist in > digital form > yet, but they will in due course; others exist in niche markets but > may > become more popular... some simply haven't been thought of yet. > Ok, point taken, but as these new types appear, they will get their own tags, is my point. > >> However, I think if <object> is so widely derided by everyone, than I >> think it needs to be depreciated sooner rather than later. > > I have seriously considered doing this. Unfortunately I don't think > we can > actually do it given the large amount of legacy content, e.g. > tutorials > for how to embed flash which encourage use of <object>. I've been giving this a lot of thought. A lot of talk on this list goes into legacy/backward compatibility. I have been going round and round in my head and don't understand the idea anymore. If html5 gets rid of the object tag, I don't understand how we break anyone's web pages. Unless there is an html5 doctype, any UA is simply going to render pages as is now. So we can get rid of object, and developers have to educate themselves to use the new tags and methods when writing new pages. After all, if we leave object, however badly implemented, many people will continue to use it, or even worse, educate new developers to use it, as it 'just works'. It's very late over here in the uk, so I've probably fried my brain and am missing the obvious reason we can't do this. Gareth
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:02:22 UTC