XHTML 2 is going to get rid of the tag, which I think is good.
is a far better tag mainly because of it's fallback options,
but the problem with object is that is has a very messed up history and
as a result, it's practically impossible to use it for anything useful
as long as your clients ar
> What do you guys think of this? Is their somewhere I can
> submit this too?
>From http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/
"Public discussion may take place on [EMAIL PROTECTED] (archive). To subscribe
send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word subscribe in the
subject line."
hth
Alan Trick wrote:
XHTML 2 is going to get rid of the tag, which I think is good.
[...]
it's practically impossible to use it for anything useful
as long as your clients are using IE.
Alan,
XHTML 2 is not meant to be backwards compatible. As IE doesn't
officially support XHTML 2 at all (as, to
Thanks for the link Richard. I just looked one the www-html mailing list
and there was an argument about this in 2003, but it kind of died in the
middle without any resolution.
I guess the biggest reason would be because I don't like to type a lot
of extra code for no reason. esspecially with t
Alan Trick wrote:
When (if)? IE supports HTML it may still want to be able to support it's
old buggy . Just look at all their CSS bugs they have in the
name of 'backwards-compatibily' and 'consistancy'.
But that's my point: XHTML 2 as a specification is not meant to be
backwards compatible, so
