- From: Brian V Bonini <b-bonini@cox.net>
- Date: 29 Jun 2003 10:09:05 -0400
- To: Ben Meadowcroft <cee.plus@virgin.net>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Sat, 2003-06-28 at 19:10, Ben Meadowcroft wrote: > J. King wrote: > > It's been discussed that markup can easily be either too short or too > > long. > > > > > > Since <object> is likely to be used quite extensively in XHTML 2.0, it > > would seem to be preferable to shorten it to something like <obj>, > > which can still be rather easily decyphered--more easily than some > > old HTML elements and attributes, even. Given the nature of <object> > > and its new importance, cutting the extra three character would make > > inserting images into XHTML 2.0 documents less of a chore than it > > would otherwise have to be. > > > > Though since <object> is already well established, this would make > > transition a little less obvious, but things are getting seriously > > jumbled and rearranged anyway--would it not be a reasonable change? > > No, it's only three characters for goodness sake, why bother? Probably for the same reasons we have <img> and not <image>
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 10:04:46 UTC