OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [dita] With multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?

I also agree that <object> should be kept.

Mark Giffin

On 8/5/2019 7:24 AM, Eliot Kimber wrote:

I think keeping <object> in the base is a given.

But for 2.0 it could make sense for <object> to move to attributes things that are attributes in HTML5 and are on subelements today. That would then allow <audio> and <video> to do the same but as proper specializations of <object>.

I've certainly had clients in the past who used <object> (or specializations of it) for things like custom browser plugins, back when that was a thing people did.

The Web world has definitely evolved to a place where audio and video are the primary embedded media types with other things being handled in the browser using JavasScript and canvas rather than plug-ins, so the need for <object> is definitely lower but it's still needed, as others have pointed out.

Cheers,

E.


--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com

ïOn 8/5/19, 9:15 AM, "Michael Priestley" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

     I think the first
     question is: do we keep object? If we don't then it forces a rebasing discussion,
     if we don't then it changes the question.
I think it does 
     make sense to keep object available in full DITA, just like it's still
     available in HTML5. It handles more cases than audio and video, and the
     description would need to be changed to reflect that.
If we do keep 
     object then the question changes to: what is the value of making audio/video
     peers rather than specializations? What are the specialization limitations
     we're currently encountering, and are there other ways we could address
     them, other than ditching object as a parent?
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) 
     Taxonomy Specialist, Marketing Analytics
     mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
From: 
            Chris
     Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
     To:
            Carlos
     Evia <cevia@vt.edu>
     Cc:
            Robert
     D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>, Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com>,
     "ligh >> dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
     Date:
            2019/08/04
     02:00 PM
     Subject:
            [EXTERNAL]
     Re: [dita] With multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
     Sent
     by:        <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
     ________________________________________
If we have no 1.3 domain, then LwDITA 
     will not be interoperable with DITA 1.3. If itâs different between 1.3
     and 2.0 itâll involve migration costs. The genesis of all this was the
     desire to make LwDITA interoperable with official, TC-provided DITA 1.3.
Best, Chris On Aug 4, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Carlos Evia <cevia@vt.edu> 
     wrote:
This is an interesting and scary conversation. 
     Scary particularly for me:
     If we redesign the multimedia domain
     to be 2.0 compatible and look more like HTML5 (with properties as attributes
     instead of elements), the LwDITA committee note and my book on LwDITA will
     be obsolete/inaccurate. However, I wonder if that is the right thing to
     do if there isn't a real need for a 1.3-compatible multimedia domain.
     So... the question is: with the LwDITA
     spec not really being released months/years before 2.0, do we need a 1.3-compatible
     multimedia domain to make LwDITA 1.3-compliant? Should we just aim for
     LwDITA-2.0 congruence?
     If we need a small taskforce to explore
     what a new multimedia domain would look like if we don't need 1.3 compatibility,
     count me in.
Carlos -- 
     Carlos Evia, Ph.D.
     Associate Professor of Communication
     Virginia Tech
     Blacksburg, VA 24061-0112
     (540)200-8201
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:55 PM Robert 
     D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
     wrote:
     Thanks Alan.
About this: 
     > I experienced whiplash
     when I learned that the review target was DITA 2.0, not the DITA 1.3 multimedia
     domain that we had long planned. But if 2.0 is the target, ...
The original goal for this markup was definitely a DITA 1.3 compatible 
     domain that would 1) be usable by LwDITA, and 2) carry forward more or
     less unchanged into DITA 2.0. LwDITA was the driver behind that -- having
     a 1.3 compatible domain is of course a nice thing to have, but the domain
     design was driven by the desire to have a LwDITA that is compatible with
     DITA 1.3 and (ideally) DITA 2.0.
If we make them base elements, then it's of course still possible to write 
     a DITA 1.3 domain using the current model, but audio/video content marked
     up using that domain would need to be migrated before it could become DITA
     2.0.
All of this is why I was a little hesitant to raise the idea... 
     Robert
     D. Anderson
     DITA-OT <https://dita-ot.org/>lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
     Marketing Services Center________________________________________
     E-mail:robander@us.ibm.com
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA<15838691.gif> <graycol.gif>Alan 
     Houser ---08/02/2019 05:50:14 PM---Thanks, Robert ... good observations
     and comments. I experienced whiplash when I learned that the re
From: Alan Houser <arh@groupwellesley.com> 
     To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
     Date: 08/02/2019 05:50 PM
     Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dita] With
     multimedia coming, what happens to the object element?
     Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
     ________________________________________
Thanks, Robert ... good observations and comments. 
     I experienced whiplash when I learned
     that the review target was DITA 2.0, not the DITA 1.3 multimedia domain
     that we had long planned. But if 2.0 is the target, I don't believe we
     would have designed the multimedia support in the way that we did. Using
     child elements to specify properties makes the vocabulary much more verbose
     than otherwise (9 element types instead of 2), and is especially awkward
     for Lightweight DITA.
     I like the idea of adding audio and video
     to the DITA 2.0 base. I would favor defining attributes to specify properties,
     as does HTML5.
     We can still release a DITA 1.3 multimedia
     domain as currently designed, if it's the will of the TC to do so.
     I'll note that this approach would have
     ramifications for Lightweight DITA, which I have barely begun to think
     through.
     -Alan
     On 8/2/19 4:52 PM, Robert D Anderson
     wrote:
     Keith had a fascinating comment in the
     multi-media review that got me thinking - does the presence of audio and
     video supersede the need for the object element?
My gut reaction was - maybe so, but only if we make audio/video part of 
     the base vocabulary (they can't be based on object and still mean object
     is unnecessary). But digging further, it's clear other uses are possible,
     so I don't think we can say the new elements supersede it. I've only used
     objects for audio/video, but here's a good HTML5 example of using the element
     to embed a PDF: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/object
At a minimum, Keith's comment points out that we need to clean up our reference 
     topic for <object> so that it no longer talks about audio/video.
Beyond that, this comment -- and other chatter on the list during the review 
     -- has me wondering about how much simpler things would be if audio/video
     were just base elements, rather than specializations of object. I know
     why we didn't consider that initially, and I probably risk the wrath of
     Kris or Chris in asking, but I wonder if at this point it's worth reconsidering?
     It would give us more flexibility in the definition to address some of
     the review comments that have come in. The down side is that it would rule
     out a backwards-compatible domain that works with DITA 1.3 and DITA 2.0.
     That said, the currently-defined domain markup would have a simple migration
     path into a DITA 2.0 model that uses base elements.
I don't want to go too far down that path without more discussion though...Robert 
     D. Anderson
     DITA-OT <https://dita-ot.org/>lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
     Marketing Services Center________________________________________
     E-mail:robander@us.ibm.com
11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA<15838691.gif> -- 
     Alan Houser
     Group Wellesley, Inc.
     Consultant and Trainer, Technical Publishing
     arh on Twitter
     412-450-0532
The content of this email and any attached 
     files are intended for the recipient specified in this message only. It
     may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged,
     and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is strictly forbidden
     to share any part of this message with any third party or rely on any of
     its contents, without the written consent of the sender. If you received
     this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with deletion
     of the original message, any copies and all attachments, so that Oberon
     Technologies can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future. [attachment
     "15838691.gif" deleted by Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM] [attachment
     "graycol.gif" deleted by Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]