9657 2010-05-05 02:58:56 +0000 Content model of object 2012-08-24 17:30:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics a11y, WGDecision P2 major LC 9658 1 xn--mlform-iua erika.doyle cooper erika.doyle ian julian.reschke laura.lee.carlson mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys xn--mlform-iua public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 35432 0 xn--mlform-iua 2010-05-05 02:58:56 +0000 The spec defines the content model of <object> as "Zero or more param elements, then, transparent." Which means that only the content which the parent of <object> permits, is permitted inside <object>. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-0.html#transparent Compared with HTML4, then this is valid: <object type="image/gif" data="image"> Falback. Backfall. </object> Also, iif you try to validate as HTML4/XHTML1.x a inside a : Outer Inner Outer then the validator.w3.org specifically tells us that this is an error, which can be corrected by wrapping it inside a object: ]] document type does not allow element "p" here; missing one of "object", "ins", "del", "map", "button" start-tag [[ 36433 1 xn--mlform-iua 2010-06-27 03:06:30 +0000 ISSUE-107 is related to this. Lachlan's example breaks with the new content model of HTML5, as it - per HTML5's understanding - is nesting a inside a : <object type="application/vnd.o3d.auto"> <param name="o3d_features" value="FloatingPointTextures"> <img src="o3d-teapot.png" title="3D Utah Teapot illustration rendered using O3D." alt="When O3D renders the Utah Teapot, it appears as a squat teapot with a shiny metallic finish on which the surroundings are reflected, with a faint shadow caused by the lighting."> To see the teapot actually rendered by O3D on your computer, please download and install the <a href="http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/docs/gettingstarted.html#install">O3D plugin</a>. </object> <script src="o3d-teapot.js"></script> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-iframe-element.html#the-param-element 36437 2 xn--mlform-iua 2010-06-27 16:26:23 +0000 For the claim that HTML4 meant to align the content model of <object> and the content model of <ins> and <del>, then note that the W3 HTML4 and XHTML1 validation service currently does not implement HTML4.01, but stamps the example which HTML4 lists as illegal, as legal. Example found here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0641.html 36438 3 xn--mlform-iua 2010-06-27 16:29:34 +0000 Related message w.r.t. <ins>,<del> and <object>: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0642.html 36439 4 xn--mlform-iua 2010-06-27 16:47:38 +0000 This bug relates to A11Y as it impacts how to place fallback in obejct. See my reply to David: [1] >> But why would you want to allow nested paragraphs only when there is >> an object element between them? > > Because, technically, it then isn't a paragraph inside a paragraph. It > is a paragraph inside an object inside an a paragraph. From a practical > point of view, because <object> is supposed to have fallback, including > long fallbacks and transcripts. With the HTML5 limitation, you would > have to to this: > > Paragraph 1. > <div>Paragraph 2: <object data="image">Fallback.</object></div> > Paragraph 3. > > Whereas the HTML4 model allows us to do the logical thing: > > Paragraph 1. > Paragraph 2: <object data="image">Fallback.</object> > Paragraph 3. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jun/0637 37524 5 ian 2010-08-16 22:27:22 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Did Not Understand Request Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't understand. Could you elaborate? 37532 6 xn--mlform-iua 2010-08-16 23:14:33 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > Status: Did Not Understand Request > Change Description: no spec change > Rationale: I don't understand. Could you elaborate? The request is to define a content model for the object element which is compatible with the HTML4 content model for the same elelement. By defining the content model as transparent, HTML5 makes it forbidden to do the following (which is not forbiddenin HTML4 or XHTML1): <object type="*" data="*"> </object> 38304 7 cooper 2010-08-31 13:37:16 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Aug/0013.html The bug triage sub-team thinks the HTML A11Y TF does not need to formally follow this bug. Original submitters or other interested parties may choose to continue to push this issue on their own. Notes from the sub-team may follow in a separate comment. 38315 8 cooper 2010-08-31 13:37:51 +0000 Bug triage sub-team says as long as fallback can be provided, we're not persnickety about the form 38355 9 xn--mlform-iua 2010-08-31 21:18:29 +0000 (In reply to comment #8) > Bug triage sub-team says as long as fallback can be provided, we're not > persnickety about the form This bug is not about form. But about content model. 38913 10 xn--mlform-iua 2010-09-12 13:21:49 +0000 New info has been provided. 39651 11 ian 2010-09-28 06:07:18 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: I don't understand why we would want to duplicate the error from HTML4 here. An <object> representing its fallback is essentially acting as if it wasn't there. Having a paragraph contain a paragraph is bogus. 44596 12 xn--mlform-iua 2011-01-22 02:38:10 +0000 Adding TrackerRequest. This change TrackerRequest also relates to Bug 9428. Suggested title and text for the issue tracker: TITLE: HTML4's content-model for <object> should continue TEXT: In XHTML1 and HTML4, the <object> element creates a new context, where the parent element is ignored when the content of object is validated. This permits such constructs such as Paragraph 1 <object>Seemingly nested paragraph</object> Still paragraph 1 In fact, the solution text to ISSUE-107 resulted that the editor inserted exactly such an example into the specification. http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-iframe-element.html#the-param-element http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/107 The change proposal for ISSUE-128 also identifies a compatibility-need for using <object> to avoid that is autoclosed by <figure> in some parsers. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/FigureInP 44606 13 Ms2ger 2011-01-22 11:29:03 +0000 Please read the decision policy. 44608 14 julian.reschke 2011-01-22 11:38:11 +0000 (In reply to comment #13) > Please read the decision policy. Not sure what part you're referring to; is it about the bug being in the state "open"? That seems to be a mistake, as the Editor has set it to "Resolved, Invalid". Re-adding TrackerRequest. W3C Team - if the state being "open" is a problem then please set it back to the latest state the Editor set, being "Resolved Invalid". 44609 15 Ms2ger 2011-01-22 11:39:27 +0000 Open bug with TrackerRequest keyword is an invalid state. 44610 16 julian.reschke 2011-01-22 11:43:24 +0000 (In reply to comment #15) > Open bug with TrackerRequest keyword is an invalid state. So close the bug. If you believe what by removing the TrackerRequest keyword you can prevent an Issue being raised, you are wrong. 44611 17 Ms2ger 2011-01-22 11:45:32 +0000 (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > Open bug with TrackerRequest keyword is an invalid state. > > So close the bug. You're free to do that. > If you believe what by removing the TrackerRequest keyword you can prevent an > Issue being raised, you are wrong. I don't. However, I think Leif should decide which action to take. 44612 18 rubys 2011-01-22 12:19:28 +0000 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/158 71818 19 rubys 2012-08-03 10:41:25 +0000 Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0250.html Change Proposal: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/FlowContentInObject 72706 20 erika.doyle 2012-08-24 17:30:09 +0000 The Working Group decision for Issue 158 has been applied to the spec. Please review the change: https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/9e9d6bad81a383a7736b962d0ee3e80330db6d7c To see the changes in context, please see: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-object-element.html#the-object-element http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#transparent-content-models http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/content-models.html#paragraphs