On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Luke -Jr
<luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
It doesn't work that way. HTML is well-defined: http://www.w3.org/html/
Ah, so you DID mean the HTML standard and not HTML in general. I'm not sure what you mean by "It doesn't work that way" -- I didn't say it worked any particular way. I was simply giving a reference to the tag that lists common browsers and who supports it and what quirks it may have. Even if something isn't in the HTML standard, a lot of browsers will still render it. Likewise, just because it's in the html standard doesn't mean that all browsers will render it correctly.
> It has in fact been supported by Netscape, it was supported in IE4 (and I
> believe phased out after that).
Irrelevant.
I was simply supplying this information for history.
> It is part of the css1 standard (text-decoration: blink).
"text-decoration" is a CSS attribute, not a HTML element.
I never said it was an HTML Element. I said the same method was defined by another web-standard.
However, under the CSS2.1 standard, all standards compliant browsers DO need to support the blink tag and apply other css attributes to it. They do not have to blink the text contained inside the tag.
On Tuesday 09 September 2008 15:03:56 you wrote:
> You still need a renderer to display the video - whether you embed a java
> object, a flash object, a Windows Media Player object, etc...you're still
> going to leave out a segment of the crowd. No matter what method you chose
> you're still using a proprietary plugin - you just have to choose the one
> you think the most people will have. I think that's flash.
Poor implementation is not my concern. An embedded video file is standard HTML
and works just fine as-is in Konqueror with MPlayer Plugin.