Atlas
12-11-2002, 05:44 PM
Where can I get some Christmas music for my web page and how do I go about getting it to start when the page is first opened?
Thank you,
Atlas
Thank you,
Atlas
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : music
Zach Elfers
12-11-2002, 10:07 PM
I can't tell you where to get Christmas music, but I can tell you how to play it. <bgsound src="music.wav" loop="number"> number can be 1, 2, 3, etc., or infinite.
jeffmott
12-14-2002, 04:09 AM
BGSOUND is _not_ HTML but an MS proprietary tag. Use the OBJECT element for the correct way.
jeffmott
12-14-2002, 08:30 AM
If you're going to criticize (get technical), at least be technically correct...
You didn't seem to say anything different. What exactly is technically incorrect?
You didn't seem to say anything different. What exactly is technically incorrect?
Stefan
12-14-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Dave Clark
If you're going to criticize (get technical), at least be technically correct...
BGSOUND is a Microsoft-proprietary HTML tag and, as such, is non-standard (i.e., not cross-browser).
Dave
Actually you are wrong Clark, the HTML Spec exactly defines what is HTML.
If it's MicroSoft Proprietary markup, then you might call it perhaps MSPML, but it's not HTML per definition.
If you're going to criticize (get technical), at least be technically correct...
BGSOUND is a Microsoft-proprietary HTML tag and, as such, is non-standard (i.e., not cross-browser).
Dave
Actually you are wrong Clark, the HTML Spec exactly defines what is HTML.
If it's MicroSoft Proprietary markup, then you might call it perhaps MSPML, but it's not HTML per definition.
Stefan
12-14-2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Dave Clark
BGSOUND is an HTML tag, albeit, a non-standard one (i.e., MS-proprietary). Technically, standards don't define what HTML is -- they only define what standard HTML is. After all... There was HTML before there was a standard.
Dave
Your argumentation is flawed at it's core because you assume that something originally not existing without a well defined spec in some way invalidates a spec created at a later date. This is in no way the case.
There where rules in old socities before humans had even learned how to write.
But today the rules/laws you should abide to is written down i books.
If you go to court, it's the rules in the books that matter, not what some stoneage people might have decided on 50.000 years ago.
Evolution of things in the real world doesn't start like you seem to think with a definition. It starts in the real world, from where you get your input so you can MAKE your definition.
You can never make a definition of something that noone invented yet.
BGSOUND is an HTML tag, albeit, a non-standard one (i.e., MS-proprietary). Technically, standards don't define what HTML is -- they only define what standard HTML is. After all... There was HTML before there was a standard.
Dave
Your argumentation is flawed at it's core because you assume that something originally not existing without a well defined spec in some way invalidates a spec created at a later date. This is in no way the case.
There where rules in old socities before humans had even learned how to write.
But today the rules/laws you should abide to is written down i books.
If you go to court, it's the rules in the books that matter, not what some stoneage people might have decided on 50.000 years ago.
Evolution of things in the real world doesn't start like you seem to think with a definition. It starts in the real world, from where you get your input so you can MAKE your definition.
You can never make a definition of something that noone invented yet.
Stefan
12-14-2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Dave Clark
> Originally posted by Stefan
>You can never make a definition of something that noone invented yet.
There's a flaw in that statement, because... HTML was invented before there was ever a W3C to create standards for it.
Dave [/B]
Um, that is exactly my point...
First something gets invented (eg HTML or JavaScript) then there is a formal definition/standard created that defines it (eg HTML 4.01 and EMCA-262).
> Originally posted by Stefan
>You can never make a definition of something that noone invented yet.
There's a flaw in that statement, because... HTML was invented before there was ever a W3C to create standards for it.
Dave [/B]
Um, that is exactly my point...
First something gets invented (eg HTML or JavaScript) then there is a formal definition/standard created that defines it (eg HTML 4.01 and EMCA-262).
jeffmott
12-14-2002, 10:38 PM
I once told someone who wanted to use <invisible></invisible> to hide their HTML source that they couldn't just make up HTML elements. But I see from what you've been saying that I was wrong. You're saying INVISIBLE would be valid HTML, just non-standard? Why didn't you tell me sooner? I always wanted to use a PerfectWebPage tag...
it was "defined" when it was invented
And who continues to define it? You're telling me anybody who wants to can? I would think it would be Tim Berners-Lee, or people he appoints, which would be the W3C.
it was "defined" when it was invented
And who continues to define it? You're telling me anybody who wants to can? I would think it would be Tim Berners-Lee, or people he appoints, which would be the W3C.
Stefan
12-14-2002, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Dave Clark
Go to Dictionary.com and you'll find the "definition" for HTML that has absolutely nothing to do with the W3C.
Yes, I agree that Dictionary.com is the definite authoraty on web technology... NOT.
Before you blurp these things out, do you ever stop for a moment and think it through? :D
Go to Dictionary.com and you'll find the "definition" for HTML that has absolutely nothing to do with the W3C.
Yes, I agree that Dictionary.com is the definite authoraty on web technology... NOT.
Before you blurp these things out, do you ever stop for a moment and think it through? :D
jeffmott
12-15-2002, 10:46 AM
If Microsoft created such a tag and supported it in their browser then, yes, it would be valid HTML for the IE browser
How about people who use slang? Just because there is one person who understands a slang word, does that mean it is a valid English word?
Proprietary elements are nothing more than HTML slang. And surely just because IE may understand certain slang elements does not make it correct HTML.
How about people who use slang? Just because there is one person who understands a slang word, does that mean it is a valid English word?
Proprietary elements are nothing more than HTML slang. And surely just because IE may understand certain slang elements does not make it correct HTML.
pyro
12-15-2002, 09:20 PM
I believe that after reading this thread, I'd have to agree with Dave. The WC3 can't say what HTML is, only what "standard" HTML is. What about the <marquee> tag, or the <blink> tag? These both are valid html tags, just not standard tags. IE recognizes the <marquee> tag and NN the <blink>. If any one of us were to make a browser, we could add any tags that we want. It wouldn't be a good browser by any means, becuase it isn't standard, but the tags would still all be HTML. I personally thank God for standards. From a developers point of view, if every browser had their own tags, you would need a version of your page for every browser. But, I do agree with Dave in that these tags are valid HTML, just not standard.
Just so no one holds any of the crap I wrote above (and below) against me, I wrote that when I was very unknowledgable about HTML and how the web worked. Jeff Mott and Stefan argued the correct point, and none of what I said in this thread is worth reading...
Pyro 8-26-03
Just so no one holds any of the crap I wrote above (and below) against me, I wrote that when I was very unknowledgable about HTML and how the web worked. Jeff Mott and Stefan argued the correct point, and none of what I said in this thread is worth reading...
Pyro 8-26-03
Stefan
12-15-2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by pyro
The WC3 can't say what HTML is
Yes they can. Just as a government can say what are the laws of a country and what is not.
IE recognizes the <marquee> tag and NN the <blink>.
That is incorrect. NN supports both <blink> and <marquee>.
However the correct way to add blink and marquee is still by using Valid CSS (CSS3 in the case of marquee), instead of an IN-Valid "HTML" lookalike tag.
If any one of us were to make a browser, we could add any tags that we want.
Obviously you can add any proprietary markup functionallity with a browser. However that still makes it very far from Valid HTML.
It's just Prorprietary ML and nothing else.
But, I do agree with Dave in that these tags are valid HTML, just not standard.
That statement in it self is an oxymoron, since valid HTML == W3C standards.
The WC3 can't say what HTML is
Yes they can. Just as a government can say what are the laws of a country and what is not.
IE recognizes the <marquee> tag and NN the <blink>.
That is incorrect. NN supports both <blink> and <marquee>.
However the correct way to add blink and marquee is still by using Valid CSS (CSS3 in the case of marquee), instead of an IN-Valid "HTML" lookalike tag.
If any one of us were to make a browser, we could add any tags that we want.
Obviously you can add any proprietary markup functionallity with a browser. However that still makes it very far from Valid HTML.
It's just Prorprietary ML and nothing else.
But, I do agree with Dave in that these tags are valid HTML, just not standard.
That statement in it self is an oxymoron, since valid HTML == W3C standards.
pyro
12-15-2002, 10:24 PM
I was talking about older versions of the browsers. Back in Netscape 4.x it didn't support the <marquee> tag.
I think the W3C gives suggestions about what HTML should look like, but I don't think that Proprietary ML can't be considered HTML. Like I said, it isn't part of "standard HTML" but it would still be HTML.
I think the W3C gives suggestions about what HTML should look like, but I don't think that Proprietary ML can't be considered HTML. Like I said, it isn't part of "standard HTML" but it would still be HTML.
Stefan
12-15-2002, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by pyro
I think the W3C gives suggestions about what HTML should look like, but I don't think that Proprietary ML can't be considered HTML. Like I said, it isn't part of "standard HTML" but it would still be HTML.
OK, lets try it this way then.
Which of these tags do you think is HTML then? Ie where do _you_ draw the line if you don't recognize W3Cs authority.
<blabla>
<sgs565sxhx!!!!"#>
<?php?>
/<shdwuy>sde<\
@@fdj9u8<djie8>fduie9\\\++??
*bubba-hubba*
I think the W3C gives suggestions about what HTML should look like, but I don't think that Proprietary ML can't be considered HTML. Like I said, it isn't part of "standard HTML" but it would still be HTML.
OK, lets try it this way then.
Which of these tags do you think is HTML then? Ie where do _you_ draw the line if you don't recognize W3Cs authority.
<blabla>
<sgs565sxhx!!!!"#>
<?php?>
/<shdwuy>sde<\
@@fdj9u8<djie8>fduie9\\\++??
*bubba-hubba*
pyro
12-15-2002, 10:46 PM
If you make a browser that reads <blabla> and parses it into something useful, I would consider it a Proprietary HTML tag.
Stefan
12-15-2002, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by pyro
If you make a browser that reads <blabla> and parses it into something useful, I would consider it a Proprietary HTML tag.
Does that imply that you wouldn't cosider any of the other as "Proprietary HTML tag" if I made a browser that implements them?
If that is the case, please motivate your answer, becuse your criteria sofar has been "it's HTML if a browser implements it".
If you make a browser that reads <blabla> and parses it into something useful, I would consider it a Proprietary HTML tag.
Does that imply that you wouldn't cosider any of the other as "Proprietary HTML tag" if I made a browser that implements them?
If that is the case, please motivate your answer, becuse your criteria sofar has been "it's HTML if a browser implements it".
pyro
12-16-2002, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Stefan
Yes they can. Just as a government can say what are the laws of a country and what is not.
Then why don't they? Why do we have proprietary tags? I read that web developers spend 25% of their time finding workarounds for proprietary tags. The W3C must realize this and if the had the power or the right to enforce what HTML is, why don't they?
Yes they can. Just as a government can say what are the laws of a country and what is not.
Then why don't they? Why do we have proprietary tags? I read that web developers spend 25% of their time finding workarounds for proprietary tags. The W3C must realize this and if the had the power or the right to enforce what HTML is, why don't they?
jeffmott
12-16-2002, 08:17 AM
The W3C does not have any such authority to enforce anything.
In fact they do. The W3C holds a copyright and trademark over HTML. Browsers may still of course read, interpret, and render whatever they want however they want, however, they cannot legally call their modified versions HTML. This is never actually prosecuted on because it would be a lot of time, effort, and money just to get browsers to say they support MS-HTML, NS-HTML, or the like instead of HTML.
And thus, if it is not in the specification then it is not HTML (period)
In fact they do. The W3C holds a copyright and trademark over HTML. Browsers may still of course read, interpret, and render whatever they want however they want, however, they cannot legally call their modified versions HTML. This is never actually prosecuted on because it would be a lot of time, effort, and money just to get browsers to say they support MS-HTML, NS-HTML, or the like instead of HTML.
And thus, if it is not in the specification then it is not HTML (period)
Stefan
12-16-2002, 09:10 AM
Well, Jeff answerd that so I don't need to.
However I'm still waiting for Pyro's answer of what he considers HTML of the above examples I gave.
You are wellcome to share your view too on that subject Clark, since you also don't recognize W3Cs authority in the area.
Just remember to motivete your answers...
However I'm still waiting for Pyro's answer of what he considers HTML of the above examples I gave.
You are wellcome to share your view too on that subject Clark, since you also don't recognize W3Cs authority in the area.
Just remember to motivete your answers...
pyro
12-16-2002, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Stefan
However I'm still waiting for Pyro's answer of what he considers HTML of the above examples I gave.
I believe I already answered that. If you make a browser the parses <blabla> into something useful, I would consider it proprietary HTML for your browser.
However I'm still waiting for Pyro's answer of what he considers HTML of the above examples I gave.
I believe I already answered that. If you make a browser the parses <blabla> into something useful, I would consider it proprietary HTML for your browser.
Stefan
12-16-2002, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by pyro
I believe I already answered that. If you make a browser the parses <blabla> into something useful, I would consider it proprietary HTML for your browser.
You did NOT answer anything in my follow up question. And answering those questions is the key to understand why your argumentation falls apart, so I understand that you are trying to act as you didn't see them ;)
I believe I already answered that. If you make a browser the parses <blabla> into something useful, I would consider it proprietary HTML for your browser.
You did NOT answer anything in my follow up question. And answering those questions is the key to understand why your argumentation falls apart, so I understand that you are trying to act as you didn't see them ;)
Robert Wellock
12-16-2002, 11:37 AM
The W3C typically only publishes 'Technical Recommendations' note I did not say 'Technical Specifications' an example of a Technical Specification would be; ECMAScript, e.g. ECMA-262.
Albeit the W3C Technical Recommendations are considered to be 'specifications' with regards to the industry "code of best practice", as Jeff said they do however hold licences, trademarks, etc. themselves.
To answer Stefan's question <blabla> was the correct element, but not for standard HTML 4.01. Rather if one created an XML document with the correct DTD I could quite legally use <blabla> and still have a W3C compliant page.
Even if the W3C published and enforced legally binding Technical Specifications, it doesn't mean that someone wouldn't try to bend the rules. The truth being the W3C is a guiding consortium, nothing more and nothing less than collective understanding.
I believe this thread is exhausted with regards to productivity concerning Christmas music playing within a web page.
I could toast some bread with these embers :D only quote me on pain of death.
Merry Christmas and don't forget peace and goodwill...
Albeit the W3C Technical Recommendations are considered to be 'specifications' with regards to the industry "code of best practice", as Jeff said they do however hold licences, trademarks, etc. themselves.
To answer Stefan's question <blabla> was the correct element, but not for standard HTML 4.01. Rather if one created an XML document with the correct DTD I could quite legally use <blabla> and still have a W3C compliant page.
Even if the W3C published and enforced legally binding Technical Specifications, it doesn't mean that someone wouldn't try to bend the rules. The truth being the W3C is a guiding consortium, nothing more and nothing less than collective understanding.
I believe this thread is exhausted with regards to productivity concerning Christmas music playing within a web page.
I could toast some bread with these embers :D only quote me on pain of death.
Merry Christmas and don't forget peace and goodwill...
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.