Re: HTML 2.0 specification
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 16:11:27 EDT
Message-id: <m0qgeyk-00001MC@monolith>
Precedence: bulk
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: HTML 2.0 specification
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
Terry Allen writes:
> I concur with Eric:  let's not try to put newly implemented tags in 
> 2.0, else it'll never be finished.  Let's instead be prepared to do
> incremental updates between 2.0 and 3.0.  That way we will achieve
> a 2.0 spec (badly needed) to which patches may be applied to address
> new functionality.  

  I wouldn't say 'newly' implemented - I had embed implemented before the
Ireland Conference almost a year (November 18, 1993) ago.

> About EMBED, though, is this to contain just anything at all, without
> any interpretation?  what about overlong lines, characters the browser
> can't render, and so forth?  why is so general a mechanism useful,
> that is, for what content?
> And is the TYPE="somecontent/type" attribute meant to have as its
> value a MIME type?

  The TYPE is what the browser uses to interpret it, which should be a
valid MIME type.  If the type is text/html, just embed it in the current
document.  If it is image/gif, treat it as an inlined image.  If it is
video/mpeg, inline the mpeg (this is how the emacs browser handles inlined
mpegs).  If audio/*, play it when you display the document, etc, etc.

-Bill P.