- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:14:57 +0000
Hi, From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> >I think for <img> you want to only support image/* types (e.g. not >text/plain or text/html, not sure about image/svg+xml either, since there >is no difference between that and application/xhtml+xml); and you want to >only show them for 200 (or 301-200). What about <img> only supporting raster images? If authors want vector images then they could use <object> instead. >For <iframe> you want to support all >types, and you want to show the contents for all the response codes, but >they should show inside the frame regardless of the type. Ok, fixed. >For <embed> you >want to show only things that require plugins, and only if they have 200 >(or 301-200) responses. Interestingly enough though, Firefox 1.6a1 displays the PNG images from <embed> natively (not via a plugin). Further more, a "plugin" is probably UA dependent; some UAs require a plugin for a particular format while another UA supports it natively (e.g. IE has a plugin for MathML while Mozilla supports it natively). How should <noembed> work? (If at all, I actually dislike all <no*> element types.) >For <object> you want to show any type, and they >should show without the frame if they are image or plugin data, and with >the frame if they are not, but should only show for 200 and 301-200; other >codes should cause the fallback content to show. Ok. >I doubt HTML5 will have <applet>. Then I won't go though the hassle. :) >BTW it is spelt "response". Thanks. Fixed. Regards, Simon Pieters
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 14:14:57 UTC