Geeking : 870


Off-Topic / Geek / 870	869 \| 871

Subject:	Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:23:24 GMT
Viewed:	1425 times

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 03:58:57 GMT, Bram Lambrecht <braml@juno.com> wrote: > mattdm@mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) writes: > > PS: why does HTML just have the IMG tag? Why not have the EMBED tag > > let you _embed anything_ arbitrarily? Like, another HTML document? > > Actually, I believe the IMG tag is obsolescent. Too many things validate as approximately HTML/4.0 compliant for that to be true. Besides, IMG is way too firmly entrenched. I don't think we'll ever root it out, unless we can provide a superior alternative (human nature being what it is, a _far_ superior alternative). Jasper

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
(...) Maybe "obsolescent" was the wrong term. I think I meant depreciated...but I'm not sure if that's right either. (...) I agree. I still use IMG because it's easy and it works on almost all browsers. However, I believe that I read that you are (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
(...) Actually, I believe the IMG tag is obsolescent. IIRC, you are now supposed to use OBJECT for everything. I don't know that it'll let you embed another HTML document, though. You can use inline frames to embed HTML documents, but AFAIK, they're (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.publish)

93 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search