- From: (wrong string) äper <christoph.paeper@tu-clausthal.de>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 17:25:08 +0200
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
Christoph Schneegans <Christoph@Schneegans.de>: > > <object data="foo"> > foo > </object> > > instead of > > <object data="foo" type="image/png, image/jpg;q=0.9, image/gif;q=0.8"> > foo > </object> > > and let the server do all the work? Yes, when writing the previous mail, I wasn't quite sure what to insert in the type attribute. I was close to use just "image/*", but wanted to resemble the traditional nested code better. You seem to have copy-and-pasted my error by the way, it's image/jpeg not image/jpg. I also wonder, whether e.g. "application/*+xml", "text/*ml" or "*/xml" was legal. IIRC RFC 2616, it is not.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 11:25:09 UTC