Re: Fw: Recently published documents

That's interesting information Jonny, thank you.  I will look forward to
that.  Very interesting.

However, are you familiar with the expression "jam tomorrow"?!  ;-)

Why can't the necessary declarations be added to XHTML 1.0 so that documents
containing EMBED (and PARAM etc.) elements can be validated, *today*.
[Given that the Object tag is not widely supported today, or on legacy
browsers.]

It would take me approximately _five_ minutes to add the necessary
declarations to XHTML 1.0.  If that.

The only practical option for an authoring tool creator/vendor who offers
validation, today, is to bundle a DTD of their own construction which is a
"superset" of the "official" XHTML 1.0 one (or to bundle the official one
and wait for a flood of support calls!).   And bundling a superset one, as I
see it, defeats the purpose of having a "common" DTD to validate against.

nik

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonny Axelsson" <jax@opera.no>
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Sent: 06 August 2002 16:41
Subject: Re: Fw: Recently published documents


>
> 06.08.02 12:31:30, "Nicholas Atkinson" <nik@casawana.com> wrote:
>
> >I note that in this edition XHTML 1.0 still doesn't support the EMBED
> >element.  Which means that it is impossible to validate pages supporting
> >Netscape plug-in browsers containing Flash/Quicktime/Real etc. content.
> >
> >nik
>
> It should be mentioned that both Netscape and Opera are implementing
plug-in
> support using OBJECT that should be at least as good as the one we have
> using EMBED. Who knows, they might even end up being interoperable...
>
> For the time being you would need to do the non-validating embed-in-object
> or object-in-embed coding to support Netscape type plug-ins, but by the
time
> XHTML 2.0 is in common use, you might not have to do that anymore.
>
>
> Jonny Axelsson
> Documentation,
> Opera software
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2002 19:08:10 UTC