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

Ka-Ping Yee (kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca)
Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:52:38 -0400


Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 13:52:38 -0400
From: Ka-Ping Yee <kryee@novice.uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0)
To: murray@sq.com
Cc: bjoerns@acm.org, www-talk@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <9509191742.AA10549@sqrex.sq.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9509191338.A15231-0100000@novice.uwaterloo.ca>


On Tue, 19 Sep 1995 murray@sq.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
kryee@csclub.uwaterloo.ca, 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!