Re: The EMBED tag by Netscape (v2.0)

Ka-Ping Yee (
Tue, 19 Sep 1995 08:52:26 -0400

On Tue, 19 Sep 1995, Bjoern Stabell wrote:
> One tag that struck me as not wanted/needed was the EMBED tag as it seems
> to be just an IMG tag with no inline content type specified.

To me, EMBED seems to be another addition without purpose.

> Personally I'd much prefer
> <A REL=embed HREF="some_url">ajsdf</A>
> to
> <EMBED SRC="some_url" ALT="ajsdf">
> (or <IMG SRC="some_url" ALT="ajsdf"> for that matter)

This makes perfect sense to me.

> as this is both more backwards compatible and because the alternative,
> text representation ("ajsdf" in the above example) can include any (?)

This brings up an issue which has bothered me for some time: while the
use of FIG content as alternate text is a nice trick to maintain backward
compatibility, it seems to be a strange inconsistency -- in all other
cases the content of a given tag performs the role specified by the tag
itself (after UL, you expect a list; after P, you expect a paragraph;
after H1, you expect a heading; etc.) -- but FIG is a unique exception.
Within FIG you don't find the figure at all, but a substitute (except
for CAPTION et al, which are actually components of the figure).

This is the only problem i have with FIG, but i think it deserves some
thought, because FIG is not going to be the last case where the ability
to choose between alternatives will be useful. Things would make much
more sense if there were a more general way to designate alternatives.

Certainly we have no reason to accept EMBED. It is not part of the
standard, and never needs to be.

Ping (Ka-Ping Yee): 2N Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada, St. Paul's College, Waterloo N2L 3G5, 519 7258008
CWSF 89, 90, 92; LIYSF 90, 91; Shad Valley 92; DOE 93; IMO 91, 93; ACMIPC 94
-Ayukawa Madoka - Hayakawa Moemi - Belldandy - Tendou Akane - Hiyama Hikaru-
New! <> Yeah, i finally made a home page.