On Jun 2, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ryan
King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
http://microformats.org/wiki/include-pattern
Thank you. I'm troubled by the (ab)use of the "object" tag - what
object
is being embedded, in such cases?
The referenced node.
But it's not being embedded, is it? It's merely referenced.
In terms of markup, those are one-in-the-same. User-agents can choose
to embed the resource that's referenced.
I'm also troubled by the exhortation:
To avoid unsightly messes in Safari, you should include the
following style rule in a style sheet for the page:
object.include { width:0; height:0 }
Safari doesn't handle object elements correctly.
what would be "correct"?
Well, for one, it could give it a width other than 200px (for images
it'd be nice to use intrinsic size), for one.
and the effect on the page of not including something similar, when
viewed using FireFox 1.5 (which has vast areas of white psace0 or
ie6
(which has markers not unlike those for missing images) - see:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/executiveVCARD.htm
and compare with the original:
http://www.westmidlandbirdclub.com/club/executive.htm
Right, you should certainly apply the above styling to all browsers,
as they each have their own difficulties with object elements.
And what about agents with no CSS capability? The method smacks of
being
a kludge.
That's exactly what it is– a kludge.
However, I don't think it semantic abuse of the object element, nor
do I believe we have any better options at this point. However, if
you think of a better approach, then that'd be great.
thanks,
ryan_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
