- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:02:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jukka Korpela <jukka.korpela@tieke.fi>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
IE is the major problem with object, because of its wierd implementation. (Most particularly, the fact that instead of assuming a type of content and looking for something that handles that content, IE wants a piece of code specified that will handle it - a problem for accessibility where users may need different code to handle the same object according to their own needs). But designing a replacement and waiting for them to implement that seems like repeating the problem anew - solving it in the first place might be a better approach. Chaals On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Jukka Korpela wrote: > >Tom Gilder wrote: > >> Sadly IE/win's handling of <object> is severely broken. > >And there are serious problems with other browsers as well. Browsers that >have no idea of <object> are not the problem, if the document is written >well, i.e. with adequate fallback as the content of the <object> element. >It's the browsers that try to support <object> that are the problem, when >they fail in presenting the object adequately _and_ fail to use the >specified fallback. There's a page for testing <object> implementations at >http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/objects.html >(which crashes my IE 5.5. when ActiveX is disabled, probably due to problems >related to <object> implementation flaws!). > >Briefly, the implementation problems make the use of <object> questionable. > >> It will eventually display the image, but will behave more >> like you inserted an >> iframe - complete with padding and scrollbars. You also can't >> scale the image. > >These aren't really bugs but a matter of quality of implementation. There's >no specification of exactly how <object> embedding should take place. But >there are more serious issues. In fact, <iframe> might be a better >alternative than <object>, due to fewer bugs in implementations > >> Maybe for IE7, Microsoft? > >Well, even if IE7 supported <object> properly, how many years would it take >before we can safely use <object>. It takes time before people switch to new >versions, and people with special needs might find it more difficult to >upgrade, for various reasons like integration of a browser and assistive >technologies, or lack of the experience and skill needed for an upgrade. > >Maybe it would be best if <object> got forgotten and a new element, or set >of elements, introduced instead, designed to that browsers with no support >to it/them will present the author-supplied fallback instead. (Name? How >about <include>? :-)) This would, in a sense, repeat the design of <object>, >but giving it a fresh start, and perhaps with more modest goals. And there >should be a requirement that a user agent allow the user disable the >inclusion, so that fallbacks are used; this, if obeyed, would give some >weapons against too faulty implementations, and it could be especially >useful for accessibility too, if supported on a per-mediatype basis. (It >could be essential to be able switch off the inclusion of some media types, >when they are not useful to the user.) > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 21:02:43 UTC