Re: EMBED element

The guidelines empahsize writing in valid HTML.

Recommendations like:

"1. Write in valid HTML
2. If you choose to disregard 1. above and use EMBED, use also
   NOEMBED."

confuse many people, although they make sense.

EMBED didn't make it to the specs (it was submitted to 
W3C by Netscape), not even as deprecated,
although it is supported by Netscape 3/4 and Explorer 4,
since it allows only one alternative to the embedded object 
where OBJECT allows any number of alternatives. 

The best authoring recommendation on EMBED/NOEMBED is don't use it.

the NOEMBED element is supported poorly by Netscape 3/4, who often 
hide its content from the user, even if the embedded object is 
not shown. Using it may help mainly non-Netscape users.

I can't see a reason to mention EMBED/NOEMBED in a W3C document,
after it has been rejected from inclusion in HTML specifications.
The guidelines even discourage using deprecated markup, not mention
rejected markup.
  
Although it makes sense to use NOEMBED *if you use EMBED*, recommending
the usage of a non-standard NOEMBED element is in contradiction to 
the major message of the guidelines. Writing invalid accessible documents
is possible, but the guidelines should not get into this complicated issue. 

Regards,
Nir Dagan.
http://www.econ.upf.es/%7Edagan/

> 
> In Netscape browsers one uses the EMBED element to add plugins
> or background sound (The OBJECT element was added as of
> Navigator 4.02 or 4.03 but the support is pretty paltry).
> 
> Although EMBED is not part of HTML 4.0 or HTML 3.2, Netscape
> does provide a NOEMBED alternative element which should be
> filled in to improve accessibility. This should be placed in
> the guidelines, possibly the C.1 section.
> 
> Josh Krieger
> CAST
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 July 1998 13:53:07 UTC