- From: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:42:24 +0000
On 20 Mar 2007, at 21:50, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > >>> 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>. > > In the unlikely event that <object> be in any way discouraged, can we > ensure we allow element level fallback content for <img> (or some > replacement element) as opposed to the alt attributes we're currently > lumbered with and the longdesc attribute that WHATWG has done away > with? I asked for the resurrection of HTML+'s  element last month. The reasons I cited were exactly the same as the reasons being given now in favour of the <video> element, however I was told (paraphrasing) "Why bother, you can just use <object>" and "That would break existing implementations" (though no such implementations were cited). So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits include: ? As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would cater for image/* ? The alt and longdesc attributes can be part of the fallback content, allowing markup. ? You don't have to provide a type attribute and match on: object [type^="image/"] ? and more? - Nicholas. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2157 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070320/a1f50d17/attachment.bin>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:42:24 UTC