[standards-jig] JEP0038 (the emoticon spec) Some suggestions
richard at dobson-i.net
Wed Sep 25 11:57:00 UTC 2002
First off I think Mattias is perfectly right in the changes he is proposing,
they bring this more in-line with the latest standards and in my mind its a
good thing to be standards compliant.
> This depends on what experience the developer has, and it is never a
> good idea to implement something without reading the full spec. For
> example in XHTML 1.0, there is both the lang attribute and the xml:lang
> attribute. There are dozens of "standards" for language identification.
> I'm fine with anything, as long as it means the same as the current lang
> attribute. (That it holds the same value; that it has the same default
> value; and that there must be one <text/> without the language value.)
Well since XHTML is now at 2 I would recommend you read that, and since
xml:lang is the standard for xml language definition isnt it better to use
> >> I think the <graphic/>, <sound/> and <format/> tags were perfectly
> >> clear in the way they represent the options a client has. This
> >> <object/> tag and the format attribute will IMO add ambiguity. This
> >> <object/> tag could be confused with the tag defined in HTML (which
> >> is in no way similar).
> > Could you plz explain to me why the <object> in HTML and in my
> > proposal is in *no way* similar. Could you also tell me why w3c
> > started using <object> instead of just sticking with <img> and adding
> > <sound> and ... This object tag (whether it is in HTML or my proposal)
> > would make it possible to have a little flash movie as well as
> > emoticon. And that flash movie isn't just a simple <img>, because it
> > can include <sound> as well. I'm not at all saying that this flash
> > thing will be supported by a client within this year, but maybe it can
> > be next year (or the year after next year) and this would require
> > another tag (<flash>?), or a hack into <img>, but not with <object>...
> Multimedia emoticons. That's a bit over-the-top, don't you think? :-)
> Nevertheless, this is already supported thanks to the lovely <x/>
> element. No hacks required.
Using <object> is the best solution since in the new XHTML2 spec the img tag
is gone, and is used exactly in the way Mattias uses it, maybe you are
thinking of microsoft use of the object tag.
Also in my opinion using a <x/> tag instead of an extensible standard IS a
More information about the Standards