WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta. Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive
reference on today's web technologies.
Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!
From: Tom McDonnell <qirexrd@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 23:48:01 +0930 To: www-html@w3.org Message-ID: <Law9-F48dOCtsMWjkJR000687b9@hotmail.com>
I recognise the introduction of this attribute collection helps to reduce
the amount of code needed to assemble a page a little, but I strongly feel
an element should have a defined purpose. There are no rules to say any tag
can't reference any resource type, and so people will use anything. Imagine
the following examples all mixed up, a <script> becomes an image, <style> a
script and <p> an mpeg video (it's halfway there already).
<script src="pop" type="application/x-javascript, text/x-newspeak"/>
<style src="midnight" type="text/css, text/x-mystyle"/>
<p src="w3c-logo" type="image/png, image/jpeg;q=0.2">W3C logo</p>
<span src="logo.png">Our logo</span>
<span src="theme.mp3" type="audio/x-mpeg">Our theme jingle</span>
It's interesting to note that <html>, <head>, <title> and <body> elements
have the embedding collection defined, I can't imagine how their embedded
resources are to be rendered. Done for the sake of assigning the 'Common
collection' to everything I assume.
Tom McDonnell
From: "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:45:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3ED61D15.10354.45DB72F@localhost>
Subject: Re: XHTML 2 WD: Embedding Attribute Collection Comments
Whether it is a misuse of the <p> element depends upon whether the
image in question is logigically equivalent to a paragraph, which it
probably is not. However consider the following:
<li src="poolside.png" type="image/png">
<span src="poolside.gif" type="image/gif">
Lounging at poolside
</span>
</li>
as a list item in a list of things the document author did on her
holiday. Compared to:
<li>
<object data="poolside.png" type="image/png">
<object data="poolside.gif" type="image/gif">
Lounging at poolside
</object>
</object>
</li>
there is one less element being used to achieve the same effect and
there is no doubt in my example that it legiiamately is a list item.
An even more compact example would be:
<li src="poolside" type="image/png,image/gif;q=0.1">
Lounging at poolside
</li>
As it takes advantage of the extenstion of the type parameter from a
single Content type (as per HTML4/XHTML1) to a list of content types to
render the example more compact. The equivalent using object would be:
<li>
<object data="poolside" type="image/png,image/gif;q=0.1">
Lounging at poolside
</object>
</li>
Personally I am in favor of making it clear that the object element is
intended only for the more complictaed sorts of emebeddings that
benefit from archive, content-length, declare, param, and/or standby.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp
