Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:52:38 -0400 From: Ka-Ping Yee <email@example.com> Subject: Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com In-Reply-To: <9509191742.AA10549@sqrex.sq.com> Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9509191338.A15231firstname.lastname@example.org> On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 email@example.com wrote: > > Ka-Ping Yee writes: > > > > Certainly we have no reason to accept EMBED. It is not part of the > > standard, and never needs to be. > > Who is "we"? And why does EMBED never need to be in the spec? I apologize for the excessively presumptive tone i used. Rephrased, i believe that there is no reason to introduce another tag, EMBED, to do (as a special case) something that A has always been able to do (the fact that practically no one has *yet* bothered to implement it the way Tim Berners-Lee originally conceived it is not relevant). > The ability to do inclusion, via EMBED, is something that > has been asked for repeatedly for over a year now. If you mean the inclusion of arbitrary media types in a document, then <A HREF="..." REL="EMBED"> or the more specialized <FIG SRC="..."> can both accomplish this. Have i misinterpreted what this desired functionality is? Ping (Ka-Ping Yee): 2N Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada firstname.lastname@example.org, St. Paul's College, Waterloo N2L 3G5, 519 725-8008 CWSF 89, 90, 92; LIYSF 90, 91; Shad Valley 92; DOE 93; IMO 91, 93; ACMICPC 94 Amano Ai * Tendou Akane * Skuld * Ayukawa Madoka * Belldandy * Hayakawa Moemi <http://watserv1.uwaterloo.ca/~imprint/> Read the U. Waterloo IMPRINT online!