Stewart Stremler wrote: > begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:00:18PM > -0700: >> Stewart Stremler wrote: >>> begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:00:57PM >>> -0700: >>> [snip] >>>> Your top page seems pretty simple. Safari displays nothing for that >>>> page??? Wow! Presuming there's a view-source capability in Safari, is >>>> the html actually present? >>> There is, and there is. >>> >>> The HTML is pretty ugly. >> <heh> A run through tidy does help (some). > > Yeah, but that's an extra step. "View Source" should come with a > "prettify" button.... > >> Curious: perhaps you (mjmc and ss) have uncovered an anomaly in safari. >> I'd be interested if some really simple test cases using <object> would >> show the same symptom? > > http://www.stremler.net/temp/safari_object_test.html > http://www.stremler.net/temp/safari_object_test_image.png > >> Might be a good thing to pass on to safari people. > > I don't really see how abuse of the <object> tag is non-compliant.
I guess you are right (as is frequently the case). The "alternative content" (enclosed by object) is not displayed because the [null] object is _properly_ displayed. :-) -- so Safari can't really be accused of behaving improperly. OTOH, Firefox and Opera seem to be be behaving wrong, but more user-friendly, by interpreting a null object as an error, and degrading by rendering the alternative content. Actually, I suppose the specs are ambiguous, (as is frequently the case). >.. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
