- From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:28:59 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
I cannot speak for the HTML Working Group, but... My recollection is that the working group felt objects semantics were under specified, its functionality overloaded, and its support spotty. Rather than try to improve it and break what little support there is, the working group elected to avoid it in XHTML 1.1. We hope that other XHTML-conforming modules will come along with improved functionality for the things that object was intended to be a generic tool for (like SVG for vector graphics, SYMM for multimedia, etc.). Note also that there is an Object module in XHTML Modularization, and that markup-language authors and browser vendors are free to support this module. We just don't think there are reasonable portability guarantees for things brought in with object, so we left it out of XHTML 1.1. At least, that is my recollection and opinion. > why is the object module [1] not part of XHTML 1.1 DTD [2]? I thought the > object element was to replace img, applet, iframe, ... in order to have a > more generic element for multimedia inclusion. -- Shane P. McCarron phone: +1 612 434-4431 ApTest fax: +1 612 434-4318 mobile: +1 612 799-6942 e-mail: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 09:45:12 UTC