- From: Joanne Hunter <jrhunter@menagerie.tf>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:14:05 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
The following text was discovered Wednesday 07 August 2002 in a note
attributed to one ""Nicholas Atkinson" <nik@casawana.com>":
>
> 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.]
Probably because the <embed> element is the Wrong Way To Do It from this
perspective, much like <font> and <img> and the attributes in <body> were,
and we all already learned our lesson about officially pretending that it's
okay (read: the four or five years it took for basic stylesheets to get any
decent support and recognition).
Adding it to "transitional" would make sense to me, though, since it Is a
transitional type element. I only personally object 'cause I keep seeing
folks who say "Okidoki, it validates in Transitional", and pretend all is
okay and fine and wonderful. See previous comments by others on writing
documents to specs rather than specs to documents.
--
Joanne Hunter <http://menagerie.tf/~jrhunter/> Say No to HTML Mail!/"\
Of course, I don't know how interesting any of this really is, \ /
but now you've got it in your brain cells so you're stuck with it. X
--Gary Larson ASCII Ribbon Campaign/ \
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 15:16:44 UTC