The main problem, as I understood it, is that
"object[data]" expects
a URI, even if it doesn't know how to handle it, so the
first
suggestion is actually requesting the relative path
"./20050125"
which causes extra junk 404s (Ex. 1; not necessarily a bug).
Some UAs
even requested relative paths for anchored resources in the
page as
with the object include-pattern (Ex. 2; probably a bug and
definitely
a reason to ditch it).
1. <object class="dtstart"
data="20050125">January 25</object>
2. <object class="include"
data="#foo"></object>
Problem noted here: http://
microformats.org/wiki/include-pattern-
feedback
The next problem was browser display inconsistency with the
human-
readable text being the innerHTML of the object.
The object example listed in the WaSP post circumvented both
of these
problems, but wasn't very elegant markup and even looked
sloppy
without the accompanying CSS. The solution was basically to
ditch
"object[data]" and use "object
param[value]" instead. The inelegant–
but working–object version was:
<span class="dtstart">
January 25
<span><object><param
name="value" value="20050125"
/></object></span>
</span>
There may be an additional problem of performance–what
happens when
you load up 300 empty objects on a page even if they aren't
trying to
reload the page 300 times–but it's as yet undocumented. I
would have
spent more time finding out if the solution had been more
elegant. As
is, I wasn't seriously suggesting it, but I wanted to leave
the
possibility in there for consideration. This was as much
homework as
I deemed necessary to commit.
James
On Apr 30, 2007, at 10:27 AM, Ryan Cannon wrote:
> Perhaps I'm getting into this a bit late and this has
already been
> brought up, but I've skimmed through the conversation
and haven't
> seen it. Tantek's original proposal[1] was scrapped
because it
> didn't work in Safari 1.2.1 (WebKit v125). Hasn't that
particular
> browser version been obsoleted to that point that we
can reconsider
> using it? The latest Safari version for OS X.3 is
1.3.9, which is
> soon to be two OS versions back. Any idea precisely
when this bug
> was fixed?
>
> While few browser stats break Safari versions down to
the WebKit
> version, my site has received 1 hit from from WebKit
v125, and that
> tiny marketshare is reflected in other stats I've
found[2]. If we
> are going to talk about < 1% browsers, why are we
holding back an
> otherwise ideal design pattern for an obsoleted version
of a minor
> browser?
>
> <object> is ideal, as Tantek described it, and it
is both simple to
> write and backwards-compatible.
>
> [1]: http://ta
ntek.com/log/2005/01.html#d26t0100
> [2]: http:/
/www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html
>
> --
> Ryan Cannon
>
> Interactive Developer
> http://RyanCannon.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
|
