Message-Id: <m0sv2g6-00005hC@monolith> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 06:25 PDT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (William Perry) To: Ka-Ping Yee <email@example.com> Cc: Bjoern Stabell <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0) In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9509190826.D6246email@example.com> <Pine.3.87.9509190826.D6246firstname.lastname@example.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.