[uf-discuss] [rethinking abbr] Does <object> deserve another look?
ryan at ryancannon.com
Mon Apr 30 10:27:44 PDT 2007
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 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. 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
<object> is ideal, as Tantek described it, and it is both simple to
write and backwards-compatible.
More information about the microformats-discuss