- From: Rzepa, Henry <h.rzepa@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 14:05:03 +0000
- To: www-amaya@w3.org
>Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk> wrote: > >> I believe W3C were trying to get rid of object because of its >> complexity and inconsistent implementation, > >Well, if you are interested in the status of current implementations, >I did a simple test a while ago. Results can be found at: > > http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/object/results > A browser missing from the above list, and which appears to implement object entirely consistently, and as intended by the specification is icab (www.icab.de). I have always been very impressed by this browser, and regard it, along with Amaya, as the "carrier" of the specifications. iCab has the advantage that it implements Java and the Netscape plugin API, and so can be tested with "chemical" objects. I might also add that the MacOS platform is missing from comment above (iCab is MacOS only!). By the way, and apologies for veering somewhat off subject, I find few search engines currently do anything like a sensible job with <object>. We have engineered htdig to do this. I agree however that the implementation of <object> is logically difficult. <object> can be nested. How does one ensure that the contents of each <object> layer are semantically the SAME? One cannot in general of course, and I suppose that is one reason that XML is really viewed as replacing this aspect of HTML. -- Henry Rzepa. +44 (0)20 7594 5774 (Office) +44 (0870) 132-3747 (eFax) Dept. Chemistry, Imperial College, London, SW7 2AY, UK. http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 09:09:37 UTC