- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 11:59:26 -0500
- To: HTML Weekly WG <public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:09 AM, HTML Weekly Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > ISSUE-107 (plugin-fallback-example): Politics in fallback example for plugin usage [HTML 5 spec] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/107 > > Raised by: Julian Reschke > On product: HTML 5 spec > > Escalated from bugzilla: <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8784> > > The spec currently currently has the following example: > > <!DOCTYPE HTML> > <html lang="en"> > �<head> > �<title>O3D test page</title> > �</head> > �<body> > �<p> > � <object type="application/vnd.o3d.auto"> > � �<param name="o3d_features" value="FloatingPointTextures"> > � �This page requires the use of a proprietary technology. Since you > � �have not installed the software product required to view this > � �page, you should try visiting another site that instead uses open > � �vendor-neutral technologies. > � </object> > � <script src="o3dtest.js"></script> > �</p> > �</body> > </html> > > (see <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-param-element>) > > The problem with the fallback text is that it's not a good example at all; it just transports an anti-plugin point of view. Why would *anybody* *ever* put that text into a page? > > A more realistic example would use fallback text with instructions about where to actually get the plugin. > > > > > Most definitely support the stance described in this issue. Shelley
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 16:59:58 UTC