[uf-discuss] [rethinking abbr] Does <object> deserve another look?
karl at w3.org
Mon Apr 30 19:42:06 PDT 2007
Le 1 mai 2007 à 09:53, James Craig a écrit :
> 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>
See what has been done in ["duri" and "tdb" URN namespaces based on
Then let's see if it is possible to do something like.
It could be easily defined at IETF.
And I wonder about
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
More information about the microformats-discuss