- From: Subir Grewal <grewals@acf2.NYU.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 16:05:45 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Carl Morris <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
- Cc: HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Carl Morris wrote: :Your concern is valid, but I think the reason is that OBJECT is to only :be used for content, if your JAVA applet isn't "content" (of which can :not usually be replaced with something less) then it probably doesn't :belong even when the browser can display it... Weak point I know, it :becomes a content battle.... but sometimes I think that's the point :the W3C is trying to make. Somehow, looking at the list of authors/contributors to that draft, I doubt everyone was as concerned about content. If OBJECT is to be a replacement for IMG and a better form of FIG (which it is) then we have to acknowledge that it will be used to bring in decorative objects as well. What I call "cosmetic effects". If it is being used for cosmetic effects, I think people using browsers other than those which support that particular application (which could be something that is platform specific) don't need to know much about it. I can see people, maybe, switching browsers to view a java applet, but I'll be damned if I can imagine anyone running out to buy a new Pentium to replace tehir Mac because someone has a web page which contains an OBJECT that is only visible to PC users. On the other hand, if the OBJECT is really contextually significant, then there's all the more reason to make sure your description is content (rather than an admonition to go get another client). hostmaster@trill-home.com * PGP * Blue-Ribbon * Lynx 2.6 * comp.advocacy@NYU So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. -- Bertrand Russell
Received on Saturday, 19 October 1996 16:10:05 UTC