RE: <OBJECT> tag a pain in the neck

That's part the problem. Who knows what plugin the user is going to have and
what paramaters its going to support?

For something like flash that has only one plugin that isn't a problem, but
for sounds and images which might have millions of plugins, it is. Therefore
somemone should come up with html plugin standards or something.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Jim Correia
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 11:40
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: RE: <OBJECT> tag a pain in the neck


On 10:56 AM 2/26/01 Dave  J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk> wrote:

> > From:   Jim Correia [SMTP:correia@barebones.com]
> >
> > On 5:52 AM 2/26/01 "NeTDeMoN" <NeTDeMoNZ@flashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also, <object> has no autostart attribute.
> >
> > It doesn't need one.  It is completely extensible by using param.
> >
> > <object>
> >
> [DJW:]  My understanding is that the user parameters are intended for
> executable objects, not for the browser itself.  In fact having
> completely extensible parameters for core media types like
> audio/basic, will simply produce a nightmare of incompatible
> implementations.

Let's look at it from a practical real world example.  You want to embed
a quicktime movie and that triggers the quicktime plug-in in your
browser.  You know that the plug-in supports autoplay, etc., when used
with embed.  You want to use object, but still pass this information
along to the plug-in.  You do it with params inside of the object tag.
It is the right thing to do, and works in browser with working object
support.

Quoted from the W3C specification, "PARAM elements specify a set of
values that may be required by an object at run-time."  This is a
reasonable usage of same.

Received on Monday, 26 February 2001 12:23:57 UTC