RE: new feature request

Social media sites (SM) do not want to enable <object> as the host of user-uploaded images because of not wanting to trust third-party scripts [1]. Social media are, in terms of overall volume of readership probably as big as |WWW minus SM| . And leaving animation to be handled by animated GIF seems an unpleasant value of the status quo in terms of accessibility and bandwidth. At urging of Philip Rogers, yesterday in response, I'll be trying to talk to some of the folks at Wikimedia and Ello to see what their concerns might be. 

Education is interactive. Images are educational. If ya'll in the standards world mean something by the term "use cases" other than "reasons for doing things," then I will need some of that interactive re-education I am talking about but please, no animated GIF's for me.

[1] I have actually heard such from a real human charged with running one SM.

-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Zbarsky [] 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: new feature request

On 3/5/15 1:52 PM, David Dailey wrote:
> Would there be any  simpler way to solve the security problem short of 
> tossing out the use cases?

I'd like to understand what use cases here are not addressed by using an <object> pointing to the SVG instead of using an <img>.


Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 19:55:59 UTC