- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:12:17 +0100
Also sprach Laurens Holst:
> > <object> is *very badly* implemented. It has been a decade since <object>
> > was first created and browsers STILL don't do it right in all cases (or
> > even in most cases, frankly). Adding more complexity to such a disaster
> > zone is bad design.
>
> If the existing problems with <object> are so severe that it can$,1ry(Bt be
> reused (which I somehow doubt) ...
If <object> work so well, why do you use <img> on your home page?
> ... create a new element where you do it right. However, don$,1ry(Bt
> start separating it out into separate tags.
This is where the first HTML WG (called the HTML ERB, editorial review
board) started. In the first message to that group, on 07 Dec 1995,
Dave Raggett wrote:
| We have now set up a mailing list for us to continue the discussions
| following on from our recent get together. A press release on the
| agreement to use a single mechanism for inserting multimedia objects
| into HTML is being prepared and should be released shortly.
(You need member-access rights to see the message [1]. I hope W3C will
forgive me for posting this excerpt on a public list)
The technical specification describes the <insert> element [2], which
is member-only. The press release went out 11 Dec 1995 [3]. It's
interesting to read, in light of the proposal to do it again.
Personally, I'd say that the <insert> element (later renamed <object>)
is a remarkable failure in a WG that is otherwise know for a stunning
success: creating the world's most popular document format.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/html-erb/1995OctDec/0000.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/WD-insert-951201.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/19951201_Insert_Press.html
-h&kon
H,Ae(Bkon Wium Lie CTO ,A0~(Be,A.*(B
howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 02:12:17 UTC