Re: [whatwg] element feedback

[Nicholas Shanks]

On 20 Mar 2007, at 21:50, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:

Ian Hickson wrote:

However, I think if <object> is so widely derided by everyone, than I

think it needs to be depreciated sooner rather than later.

for how to embed flash which encourage use of <object>.

I have seriously considered doing this. Unfortunately I don't think we can actually do it given the large amount of legacy content, e.g. tutorials

In the unlikely event that <object> be in any way discouraged, can we
ensure we allow element level fallback content for <img> (or some
replacement element) as opposed to the alt attributes we're currently

lumbered with and the longdesc attribute that WHATWG has done away with?

• and more…

- Nicholas.

I asked for the resurrection of HTML+'s  element last month. The reasons I cited were exactly the same as the reasons being given now in favour of the <video> element, however I was told (paraphrasing) "Why bother, you can just use <object>" and "That would break existing implementations" (though no such implementations were cited). So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits include: • As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would cater for image/* • The alt and longdesc attributes can be part of the fallback content, allowing markup. • You don't have to provide a type attribute and match on: object [type^="image/"]

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature