- From: (wrong string) äper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:51:15 +0200
- To: "Jason M. Kikta" <kiktajm@muohio.edu>
- Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Jason M. Kikta <kiktajm@muohio.edu>: > > I think you misunderstood what I was saying (or I didn't present it > well, which is more likely). No, but I think you misunderstood me! > It is important to break backwards compatibility in this case, because > of an existing bug. In a browser that doesn't support XHTML2 nor ever will in its current version. > <object data="test.png"> > <object data="test.jpg"> > <img src="test.gif" alt="Test Picture" /> > </object> > </object> In XHTML2 that should IMO be something like <object data="test" type="image/png, image/jpg;q=0.9, image/gif;q=0.8"> Test </object> combined with server-side content negotiation. A browser should use the 'type' attribute to build its Accept header for this resource. > The problem is idiot browsers like IE, > that can't render it properly but think that they can. Yes, that's true for 'object' in HTML4. There's a quote from Goethe that applies, but I don't dare to translate it to English: »Toren und gescheite Leute sind gleich unschädlich. Nur die Halbnarren und die Halbweisen, das sind die Gefährlichen.« > Switching to <obj> would solve this problem, since IE would go to the > <img> tag, and you would still have valid XHTML 2. The 'img' element will not be in XHTML2.
Received on Sunday, 29 June 2003 19:51:19 UTC