[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Nov 28 15:41:42 PST 2005
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Simon Pieters wrote:
> > Maybe, yeah, but I don't like having something that is <object>-only;
> > the idea is that <embed>, <img>, and <iframe> are case-specific
> > versions of <object>, so that you use <embed>, <img>, or <iframe> when
> > you know what you want, and <object> when you don't.
> (Although <iframe> is different from <object> in that it always loads
> the resource.)
> > (<object> is less efficient to implement because the UA has to wait
> > til it knows what the content type is before it can know how to render
> > the element.)
> Also when there's a type attribute?
The attribute is only a hint.
> > Yeah, what's a plugin and what isn't is a UA thing, so if the UA
> > decides that its PNG and SVG "plugins" happen to be native support,
> > well, that's what it is. (Both PNG and SVG are recognised by Mozilla's
> > <embed> because at one point they were plugin-only in IE and so people
> > would use <embed> instead of <img>/<object> and so when Mozilla moved
> > to native implemen- tations for those types, it kept <embed> working
> > for compatiblility.)
> That makes it hard to test. :)
> > No idea, haven't looked at <noembed> yet. Found any trends in support?
> If plugins are enabled, render all <embed>s and hide all <noembed>s, and parse
> <noembed> as CDATA. If plugins are disabled, hide all <embed>s and display all
> <noembed>s, and parse <noembed> as #PCDATA.
> I can't find a way to disable plugins, so they are treated as Opera's "plugins
> enabled" behaviour.
> Same as Firefox.
Wow, pretty reasonable interoperability. I guess Opera's behaviour is what
we should head for, then, making disabling of plugins optional.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg