[whatwg] WhatWG and <embed>

[Shadow2531]

On 9/5/06, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger at web.de> wrote:
> Shadow2531 wrote:
> > However, see <http://shadow2531.com/opera/testcases/plugins/wmp/004.html>
>
> I don't have a WMP plugin (or a Windows OS, at the moment), do you have
> maybe a flash testcase? Also: which version of Firefox did you test with?

The FF ( trunk or 1.5.0.6) codebase problem doesn't happen with Flash
as you can see from :

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
codebase="http://www.adobe.com/"
data="shockwave/download/triggerpages_mmcom/flash.swf" width="300"
height="120"></object>

> > Either way, it works in Opera, but the difference is that with the
> > latter, the plugin itself does the resolving.  If you actually want
> > the plugin itself to do the resolving, and the plugin doesn't know
> > codebase, I think you should be allowed to make things work.
>
> I absolutely don't think this should be up to each implementor. And I
> don't think the spec should require it either. Where does this baseurl
> attribute come from anyway? I can't seem to find docs on it.

Baseurl is a valid param for the windows media plugin.

See <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/wmplay10/mmp_sdk/paramtags.asp>
and <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/wmp6sdk/htm/player6baseurl.asp>
for example. The base param works for the netscape 6.4 version also.

> > It's the wmp netscape plugin and MS's documentation that's the
> > problem, but they're never going to fix it, which is why I think it
> > should be allowed to make things work even if it is the plug-ins
> > fault.
>
> Why are they never going to fix it? And why should the browser work
> around it?

"never"= "it doesn't look like they are going to fix it, since they
haven't after all this time".

It would be good for the browser to workaround it because the plugin
maker won't and what's important is to make things work. In other
words, if they won't fix it, we could say, "oh well, it's the plugin's
problem, not ours", but that doesn't help anything.

Problem is, a browser can't just go off fixing things unless the
others are on board and that may only happen if there's something to
follow.

> > To sum things up, there needs to be a set or common way of making
> > pain-in-the-butt plugins work, but again, I guess this is beyond the
> > spec.
>
> Why does there _need_ to be such a way?

So workarounds are done in the same way, so the same markup works
arcross browsers in the same way.

Since I know you're not convinced, I'll leave it at that, but if
anyone has some MS and Real contacts, maybe we can finally get things
fixed and not worry about this.

-- 
burnout426