[standards-jig] JEP0038 (the emoticon spec) Some suggestions

Mattias Campe mattias.campe at rug.ac.be
Wed Sep 25 17:44:05 UTC 2002

Mattias Campe wrote:
> Mattias Campe wrote:
> [...]
>> - <object> is a html tag which can be used for multimedia purposes and
>>   could be used to replace <img>. Because this <object> is more
>>   straightforwarded, I would like to use it in this JEP as well.
> [...]
> I've looked up some more information about the *idea* of this object tag 
> in html: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html. You can read 
> there that the <object>-tag was brought into html4.x because of "[img 
> and applet] fail to solve the more general problem of how to include new 
> and future media types." That's exactly the same idea to include a 
> similar (but not equal, because not all the attributes will be 
> necassary) <object>-tag in JEP038.

Maybe that you could ask yourself: "As an <object>-tag in JEP038 would 
only be a small subset of the possibilities (attributes) of the 
<object>-tag in html4.x, won't this cause confusion"?

As a developer, you should know that you have to read the XML-schema 
anyway and that you can use that schema to validate your own made 

Even if (maybe this won't happen) it still would happen that the 
<object> of this JEP is confused with the <object>-tag in HTML, this 
won't cause problems, because clients will just ignore attributes they 
don't know.

And why would JEP038 developers want to use attributes of the 
<object>-tag in HTML if they are of no use in this JEP. Now you could 
say "aha, so it shouldn't be called <object>", but should I call it 
<objectJEP038> then? If I would want to describe a car, I will probably 
want to use a <part>-tag (a car is build up of parts), maybe that you 
are defining a <part>-tag with different attributes, but for a building. 
Would this mean that one of us has to use a different name? I don't 
think so...


More information about the Standards mailing list