[whatwg] <embed> feedback

[Michael A. Puls II]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently, the Gecko plug-in folks *still* insist on ignoring objects
>>> with MS-style classids instead of special-casing the common ones and mapping
>>> them to Netscape-style plug-ins or even using the data attribute if present.
>>> Opera at least uses the data attribute.
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106065#c1
>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46569
>>
>> The spec now effectively requires the Mozilla behaviour.
>
> Which behavior, exactly?  There have been at least 4 different behaviors in
> Gecko for <embed> in the last year, and frankly I'd been considering
> special-casing some common classids the way webkit does and removing the
> latest layer of cruft we added to deal with compat issues (the "don't use
> the server type if there is a type attribute that's a supported plug-in
> type" business).  I assume that we're talking about <object> here, by the
> way, not <embed>, since <embed> has no data attribute and doesn't use
> classid.

On a side, but related to object:

Attached are 2 object examples.

I'd be interested in what plug-in (if it's installed) should be loaded:

1. When file.wmv is present.
2. When file.wmv is not present.

Comparing browser behavior doesn't really help make a clear
decision.(especially with #2)

As in, does the spec as-is cover everything nicely as to how to handle
these situations, in your opinion?

(Not sure yet myself. It can get pretty crazy.)

-- 
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080724/7f75ffbe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080724/7f75ffbe/attachment-0001.html>