3 ms·
<object> is not a satisfactory equivalent for this <model> tag any more than it's a satisfactory equivalent for the <img> tag itself. <object> is semantically a
by shawnz 5y ago
<object> is not a satisfactory equivalent for this <model> tag any more than it's a satisfactory equivalent for the <img> tag itself. <object> is semantically a superset of both.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> <object> is not a satisfactory equivalent for this <model> tag any more than it's a satisfactory equivalent for the <img> tag itself. The main reason for having both <img> and <object> is that <img> existed first, and removing tags is almost always a bad idea because it brraks existing sites. > <object> is semantically a superset of both. Yes, that's why given its existence, introducing new tags that offer a strict subset of its utility is unnecessary.
- shawnz 5y agoI think it's pretty clear that that is NOT the reason why <img> still exists. Otherwise, why not just discourage its use in favour of <object> while still retaining it for compatibility? But actually the opposite is true, <img> is encouraged because it is more semantically descriptive and provides image-specific features that couldn't reasonably be added to <object>. If this line of thinking actually matched what the W3C believed, then how can you explain the addition of ANY of the new tags, for example, in the HTML 5 specification, since we already have the most general cases covered with things like <object> and <div>? Following this to its logical conclusion, why not deprecate EVERY tag except those? Why have tags at all?