[9109] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Perry)
Tue Sep 19 09:24:21 1995
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 06:25 PDT
From: wmperry@spry.com (William Perry)
To: Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
Reply-To: wmperry@spry.com
Cc: Bjoern Stabell <bjoerns@acm.org>, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9509190826.D6246-0100000@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
Ka-Ping Yee writes:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Bjoern Stabell wrote:
> >
> > One tag that struck me as not wanted/needed was the EMBED tag as it seems
> > to be just an IMG tag with no inline content type specified.
>
> To me, EMBED seems to be another addition without purpose.
Its from the old HTML+ draft, way way way way _WAY_ back. Emacs-w3 has
been using this for over a year and a half for doing inlined postscript and
inlined mpegs/avis/etc.
I was glad they used <embed> instead of <nsole xxxxx> or something
similar. Not to say <FIG> is not the right way to go.
-Bill P.
