[clue-tech] Embedded Content on a Web Page

[Joseph A. Nagy, Jr.]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 09:14:40PM -0700, Jed S. Baer wrote the following:
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 21:36:27 -0600
> Joseph A. Nagy, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > > Check your success with the <embed> tag
> > > 
> > > <embed src="file.pdf" width="750" height="400"
> > > href="file.pdf"></embed>
> > 
> > 1) to close it it's <embed src="file.pdf" width="750" height="400"
> > href="file.pdf"/> 2) It's deprecated and if he's contemplating the
> > object tag I'm going to assume he's trying for XHTML 1.0 compliance,
> > embed will show up as an error when he goes to validate.
> 
> I'd almost be OK with EMBED, except that I couldn't find any reference to
> it being a W3C standard. Couldn't find it for HTML 3 or 4. So, even though
> "most" browsers support it, it seems inadvisable. I really don't care much
> for XHTML -- I mean c'mon, "<br />" ??? Yech.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. Still. What's wrong with XHTML? They
only do that so that every tag is closed wrt the parser. Even img close like
<img src="blah.jpg" width="" height="" alt=""/>

Personally I like XHTML and HTML 4.01 Strict as it really challenges me as a
designer. Granted I'm moving away from static web pages (or at least trying
to) and moving towards dynamic content using XML/SOAP.
 
> But in looking for docs on EMBED, I've found as many variations as the
> number of web pages purporting to document it I looked at. Some propose a
> closing tag, others don't. I've seen examples where the corresponding
> NOEMBED is within the EMBED ... /EMBED pair. Others where it isn't. My old
> O'Reilly HTML (3.2) book shows no closing tag.

Then I'd say do what suits ya.

> FWIW, EMBED does function in my testing. And perhaps, since it seems that
> browsers try to support non-standard and deprecated tags, I should use it,
> since it's more likely to be supported in older browsers than OBJECT.

Personally I don't give a crap about Netscape 4.x or <IE5.0, and to some
extent even <IE5.5

> While I'd like to be HTML 4.01 Transitional compliant, in practice, maybe
> it's more kind to end users to go for what's most widely supported? If
> only there were a way to know what that was.
> 
> jed

Well if my web logs are any indication, IE is the predominant browser at
39.9% of my visitors.

< http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us/cgi-bin/awstats/awstats.pl >

-- 
AIM: pres CTHULHU | ICQ: 18115568 | Yahoo: pagan_prince Jabber: DarkKnightRadick@(jabber.org|amessage.at) 
Libertarian @ Large PGP: 0xCF7EAA67 | < http://mc-luug.homelinux.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-luug >
< http://www.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us > | < http://www.jan-jr-ent.biz > | < http://games.joseph-a-nagy-ur.us >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-tech/attachments/20050106/d5167ba3/attachment.bin