Re: a bad idea (fwd)

Once upon a time Benjamin Franz shaped the electrons to say...
>immediately when people realized the problem. Now the legacy browser base
>limits what can be done with the content model severely. It doesn't mean
>that <IMG> can't be improved - just that you can't improve it into
>a semi-substitute for <OBJECT>.

We can - but I don't think we *should*.

Why bother?  Why invest ANY effort in improving 'IMG' when we have OBJECT
which can replace it (and you can always contain an 'IMG' tag for fallback).

Why not invest the effort in adding this new feature to OBJECT instead?

I think trying to make IMG a container and adding these extra features to
it at this point is trying to add a supercharger to a Model T.  It is more
pointless than hanging JATO packs on a Piper Cub.  IMG could be improved,
somewhat, with a lot of effort - for what I see as little return and a 
definitely limit on potential.

Whereas OBJECT is a lot more flexible and inherently extensible.  Since these
are new behaviors anyway, it is the same whether added to IMG or OBJECT.
But adding it to OBJECT provides for a greate ability to expand on them
later, and also helps facilitate the obsoleting of IMG.  If we abandon IMG
now, as far as development goes, in a year or two it might be a memory with
OBJECT taking over.  If not, at best it will be a fallback for OBJECT.  I
would freeze IMG as is with the advent of OBJECT in Cougar - no PNG support,
no new formats, no new extensions.  And add all new bells and whistles to
OBJECT.

-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 6920 Koll Center Parkway  #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566

Received on Monday, 15 July 1996 20:26:38 UTC