W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] <source>

From: Shadow2531 <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 14:07:05 -0400
Message-ID: <6b9c91b20703231107h2e318f13m46d0efadabbf8275@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/23/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> I don't really like this element. The name is confusing especially with an
> attribute named src="". It also introduces yet another void element, can't
> we just reuse <param>? The value="" attribute of <param> would point to a
> resource and the type="" attribute (which has been dropped) would be added
> back. I suppose it might be considered overloading, but in a way we're
> just defining how the processing model of a plugin could also work...

With OBJECT, the TCL plugin <http://www.tcl.tk/software/plugin/> has a
script param where you pass an inline tcl script like this (you may
remember this):

<param name="script" value="line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line6
etc.
">

In this case, the browser shouldn't strip and normalizes the newlines
from the value attribute before passing to the plugin. (FF and IE
handle this nicely. They may do this only for the tcl plugin though.).

Now, if a param element was used inside a media element, that
exception for the param's value attribute would not be needed and
normalize whitespace handling would be used.

Is there any problem with making the param value attribute inside a
media element have a different whitespace normalization than it would
if inside OBJECT?

If there is a problem doing that, then perhaps having <source> would
avoid that. If there is no problem, then <param> seems like it'd be
just fine instead of <source>.

-- 
burnout426
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 11:07:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:54 UTC