- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:56:44 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Let's not start a wild and long object vs embed / software patents thread ... but: David Woolley wrote: > On about Thursday last week, Adobe re-issued their SVG plugin with a > number of serious security flaws fixed. > > In connection with one of the (lesser) flaws, they said that people > should use EMBED rather than OBJECT, and the wording suggested that it > was their standard advice to use proprietary HTML with their plugin; > there was no indication that EMBED was proprietory. (The specific issue > is that they can apparently sense the effect of the user's policy on > scripting with EMBED, but not with OBJECT, so they have unconditionally > disabled scripting with OBJECT.) Yes, I think they should at least say that "embed" is not HTML = is non-standard (and AFAICS they could limit their recommendation to scripted SVG in IE). Hopefully there soon will be a patch for IE addressing the issue (web page authors can't fix the bugs in IE, but MS can). > (In respect of the last, I don't believe software patents create the > innovation that is the justification for governments having patent > laws. In this case the innovation has been in ways of avoiding the > patent, but which are generally detrimental to the web; they have not > been in potentially better ways of achieving the same thing.) Support http://swpat.ffii.org/ :) Tobi -- http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Monday, 13 October 2003 04:58:20 UTC