4 ms·
The object tag is problematic because it has a single interface for every supported content type. Want to expose functionality? Can't, unless it's a param that
by bastawhiz 5y ago
The object tag is problematic because it has a single interface for every supported content type. Want to expose functionality? Can't, unless it's a param that is passed as a string. Having a dedicated element type enables it to be used in many ways (like drawing images to a canvas) that an object tag does not support.
It's also hardly a case of NIH to update a spec with a more specific element than another one in the same spec. We've done this numerous times in the last decade. The object tag isn't an X3D concept.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The object tag is problematic because it has a single interface for every supported content type. Want to expose functionality? Can't, unless it's a param that is passed as a string. On a markup level, that's true of any tag. On a functional level, it’s not true of <object>, as the tag expects supported functionality to be defined separately for every type. > Having a dedicated element type enables it to be used in many ways (like drawing images to a canvas) that an object tag does not support. There’d nothing preventing the handler for a media type from doing that.
- true_religion 5y agoYeah, if we all used object instead of image tags then you could just download an extension that filled in avif or webp and we could move forwards.