Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0)

William Perry (wmperry@spry.com)
Tue, 19 Sep 95 06:25 PDT


Message-Id: <m0sv2g6-00005hC@monolith>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 06:25 PDT
From: wmperry@spry.com (William Perry)
To: Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: Bjoern Stabell <bjoerns@acm.org>, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9509190826.D6246-0100000@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
 <Pine.3.87.9509190826.D6246-0100000@novice.uwaterloo.ca>

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.