- From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 13:22:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: >At 09:01 AM 10/4/96 -0400, Fred L. Drake wrote: >>I'm very uncomfortable with the >>example-based description of OBJECT in the WD-object draft. Perhaps >>requiring in the specification that at least one of CLASSID, CODETYPE, >>or TYPE be specified would help. > >Often the HTTP mime type of the fetched object would be sufficient to figure >out what binary plug-in to use. But OBJECTs can be nested so that the UA can drop through it until it finds something which it can handle (ideally, with worthwhile HTML markup in the deepest level of the nest). To use the HTTP mime type for such decisions, the UA would have to send a HEAD request and analyze that reply. It would be better to *require* at least one attribute within each OBJECT tag adequate for making the descision. Fote ========================================================================= Foteos Macrides Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU 222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 =========================================================================
Received on Friday, 4 October 1996 13:24:16 UTC