Re: HTML4.0 draft: Sound objects

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:28:17 -0500


Message-Id: <l03110702b03a0ff9f32c@[192.168.1.117]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19970908095038.0069b738@mail.ais-bbs.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:28:17 -0500
To: "James Nerlinger, Jr." <jnj@ais-bbs.org>
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Cc: www-html@w3.org, megazone@livingston.com
Subject: Re: HTML4.0 draft: Sound objects

At 8:50 AM -0500 1997-08-09, James Nerlinger, Jr. wrote:
>MZ was heard to say....
>
>>I'd not.  Aside from my personal stance - I detest embedded sounds
>>completely and tend to leave immediately - sounds are just another object,
>>and are properly included with the OBJECT tag.
>
>Don't hold back -- tell us exactly how you feel.  :)
>
>Many users and clients like the sounds and it would be simpler to code them
>if we simply had a dedicated tag, especially when browser and plug-ins
>can't seem to work together to produce the sound in a uniform way.  :(
>
>James.

Except that BGSOUND is essentially a proprietary extension which isn't in
*any* of the specs, and really serves no valuable purpose that I can see
(aside from embedding bg sounds into documents, which can be done using the
OBJECT element or some other variation of).  Not to mention the fact that
NS3.0 and IE3.0 *both* support the (non-standard) EMBED element, whereas
only IE supports the BGSOUND element (for good reason!).

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------