[standards-jig] JEP0038 (the emoticon spec) Some suggestions
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
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
More information about the Standards