Re: HTML 2.0 firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 16:11:27 EDT
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
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.