Re: XHTML 1.1

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Shane P. McCarron wrote:
> [Johannes Ewalt Koch:]

> > 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.
 
> My recollection is that the working group felt objects semantics were
> under specified, its functionality overloaded, and its support spotty.

Shouldn't the third be the normally expected outcome of the first two?;-)

> 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.

Good call, thanks.

> 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. 

The basic problem with a generic element for multimedia inclusion is that
this is probably *too* general with element-and-attribute syntax alone.
The older APPLET+PARAM scheme had the disadvantage of the actual parameter
names not being exposed to useful validation; the OBJECT element in the
HTML specs having *some* Solomonic grab-bag of attributes still doesn't
address the essential issue - that the different objects have different
characteristics, all they share with respect to HTML is the status of
independent entities to be transcluded.

The SGML solution for this is data content notations: where the "object
specific" attributes are attached to *notations* rather than elements, and
the objects themselves are invoked through entity declarations.

Unfortunately, XML doesn't allow data attributes, which is one good reason
why XML-izing HTML is a bad idea.


Arjun

Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 23:25:04 UTC