[whatwg] Test suite: Embedded content

[Ian Hickson]

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.)

True.


> > (<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. :)

Indeed!


> > No idea, haven't looked at <noembed> yet. Found any trends in support?
> 
> Opera:
> 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.
> 
> Firefox:
> I can't find a way to disable plugins, so they are treated as Opera's "plugins
> enabled" behaviour.
> 
> IE:
> 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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'