shadow2531 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 23 11:07:05 PDT 2007
On 3/23/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> I don't really like this element. The name is confusing especially with an
> attribute named src="". It also introduces yet another void element, can't
> we just reuse <param>? The value="" attribute of <param> would point to a
> resource and the type="" attribute (which has been dropped) would be added
> back. I suppose it might be considered overloading, but in a way we're
> just defining how the processing model of a plugin could also work...
With OBJECT, the TCL plugin <http://www.tcl.tk/software/plugin/> has a
script param where you pass an inline tcl script like this (you may
<param name="script" value="line1
In this case, the browser shouldn't strip and normalizes the newlines
from the value attribute before passing to the plugin. (FF and IE
handle this nicely. They may do this only for the tcl plugin though.).
Now, if a param element was used inside a media element, that
exception for the param's value attribute would not be needed and
normalize whitespace handling would be used.
Is there any problem with making the param value attribute inside a
media element have a different whitespace normalization than it would
if inside OBJECT?
If there is a problem doing that, then perhaps having <source> would
avoid that. If there is no problem, then <param> seems like it'd be
just fine instead of <source>.
More information about the whatwg