- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:49:00 +1100
- To: "Dominique Hazael-Massieux" <dom@w3.org>, "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
- Cc: "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:37:33 +0100, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
wrote:
> r
> Le vendredi 18 janvier 2008 à 00:41 -0500, Sean Owen a écrit :
>> I don't mind taking that view, but, it seems that when the body of an
>> <object> tag, which is the fallback that is rendered when the <object>
>> can't be, is at least partially not supported, this should not be
>> considered OK any more than if the body of the <object> was a single
>> other <object> that can't be rendered.
>
> Yes, I agree; I think Charles' point only applies when the <object>
> elements are nested, but not when they are siblings as in my example.
Hmmm. Dealing with the body of an object is tricky. For mobileOK Basic I
can live with it just rejecting stuff, but in the real world, there is no
reason I can see not to use an object that is unsupported along with an
empty body, or to have supplementary content (e.g. audio) made available
to browsers that support it, while allowing it to fail silently in
browsers that don't.
After all, doing that provides for clean user experience, takes advantage
of capabilities, allows working around defects (except the major defect of
IE that it makes a hash of object in the first place)...
cheers
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 01:49:23 UTC