Ben Meadowcroft wrote:

>J. King wrote:
>  
>
>>It's been discussed that markup can easily be either too short or too
>>long. 
>>
>>
>>Since <object> is likely to be used quite extensively in XHTML 2.0, it
>>would seem to be preferable to shorten it to something like <obj>,
>>which can still be rather easily decyphered--more easily than some
>>old HTML elements and attributes, even.  Given the nature of <object>
>>and its new importance, cutting the extra three character would make
>>inserting images into XHTML 2.0 documents less of a chore than it
>>would otherwise have to be.
>>
>>Though since <object> is already well established, this would make
>>transition a little less obvious, but things are getting seriously
>>jumbled and rearranged anyway--would it not be a reasonable change?
>>    
>>
>
>No, it's only three characters for goodness sake, why bother?
>
>  
>
It's a whole 3 characters that wouldn't have to be typed all the time. 
Good enough reason to change it I'd say.
<Arthur/>