[Laszlo-dev] Raw HTML

Tue Feb 13 11:48:30 PST 2007

I'd reverse the order. We want folks to use the "least common  
denominator" at first, then migrate to the runtime-specific tag only  
after discovering a runtime-specific requirement.

I'd also be explicit that we don't enforce the limited tag support in  
<text> when running in DHTML -- this is a bug that should be filed  
(can you do that, John?), but that we won't be fixing for this release.

We *could* look into injecting minor tweaks into the <text> output  
for DHTML to match Flash more exactly, but I haven't looked at the  
code so I can't comment on feasibility. Max?

jim

On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:30 AM, John Sundman wrote:

> Given what Adam says about SWF's implementation of <img> and Phil's  
> experience tweaking, how about I say something like:
>
> 1) When optimizing for DHTML, use the <html> tag if you want to  
> include images.
> 1a) Do you then use <text>for text formatting, or not use it at all?
>
> 2) When you want to have source that can be compiled for both DHTML  
> and SWF
> a) use <text> tag -- "lowest common denomiator"
> b) note that this limits the markup you can use to those html tags  
> supported by the <text> tag
> c) you may need to "tweak" sources using things like <br/> to  
> increase likihood of ~same layout.  It's unlikely that you'll get  
> exacty the same layout, due to limitations of the Flash player, but  
> you can get close.
>
> Comments?
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Jim Grandy wrote:
>
>> From the perspective of differentiating <text> from <html>, it  
>> would help if we could say that <text> is a "least-common- 
>> denominator" solution, and that does argue for making <text>  
>> behave more consistently across runtimes.
>