RE: Netscape and Microsoft should come up with plugins standard

> From:	Daniel Hiester [SMTP:alatus@earthlink.net]
> 
> Oh, I get what you're saying now. Would you say the same about IMG as
> well,
> since one supposedly can, and "should" use OBJECT in the place of IMG in
> the
> future?
[DJW:]  
I did wonder about that.  I also wondered if the logic chain would
end up with A being subsumed by OBJECT, but even though one can argue
that A is just a subset of OBJECT with a special presentation (replace
rather than embed) it's so fundamental to HTML that it should
be retained (really OBJECT and IMG are the aberrations).

However, if you do retain A, it becomes a poor relation if you don't
allow parameters on a JPEG when it is reference by A but do allow them
when referenced by OBJECT; you might end up by having a variation of
OBJECT with A type semtantics, in the same way that you can use OBJECT
with IMG semantics.

I don't think that either A or OBJECT should have these parameters, but,
if OBJECT gets them, they shouldn't be denied to out of line presentation
of images and sound, etc.  (I wonder how many authors reallise that images
are fully fledged resources and can be the subject of A links.)
-- 
--------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 09:55:39 UTC