Re: about the OBJECT tab

Paul Prescod <> 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.


 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