embed tag

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Luc, Oct 17, 2005.

  1. Luc

    Luc Guest

    I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as the
    music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start another
    elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?
    Luc, Oct 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Luc wrote:

    > I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as
    > the music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start
    > another elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?


    Probably doesn't matter, because I (and many others) will be gone from
    your site in seconds, as soon as you interrupted the jazz I was playing
    on my computer.

    Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
    link.

    --
    -bts
    -When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Luc wrote:
    > I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag.


    Probalby a bad idea, but it is your site...

    > But as soon as the
    > music file ends it start over again.


    Damn them! Damn them to hell!!!

    > The idea would be to start another
    > elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?


    It isn't. Use Flash or java to do something like you want. And then
    only after you ask it is it ok to play music.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Oct 17, 2005
    #3
  4. Luc

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Luc quothed:

    > I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as the
    > music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start another
    > elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?
    >
    >
    >


    I agree with Beauregard, despite his name. Audio should be optional,
    not forced on a user. Also, when I surf, I do it with sound off. If
    the site is "mysteriously" slow, I leave. If the site comes to a halt
    to load some unannounced Flash giz, I leave.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 17, 2005
    #4
  5. Luc

    Stan McCann Guest

    "Luc" <> wrote in
    news:nvR4f.25592$-ops.be:

    > I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon
    > as the music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to
    > start another elevator music song and not the same. How is this done
    > guys?


    Easy, link each music file and list as a menu. As soon as a music file
    ends, the user then can select another.

    OTOH, if you insist in playing music without any choice on my part,
    adios, I'll find another site to look (and not listen to) at.

    --
    Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
    Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
    http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
    Those that understand binary and those that don't.
    Stan McCann, Oct 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Luc

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Luc" <>
    >
    > I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as the
    > music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start another
    > elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?
    >
    >


    I suppose old Spartanicus would not mind if I suggest you look
    at http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/embed.htm for a start.

    I would imagine that if you really wanted to have continuous
    elevator music, you would need to prepare it as one long file
    and then include it. Yes, embedding is definitely the way to go
    with such music, for maximum realism (as with real elevators
    where you can't easily escape! :)

    You can also use parameters like Loop but I am rusty on this
    though have used this myself once or twice for fun.

    Midi files are probably best because impressively small.

    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 18, 2005
    #6
  7. Luc

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <>
    >
    > Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
    > link.


    Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
    as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
    view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
    could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
    choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
    One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
    stage.

    As we have been lucky enough to learn from Luigi, freedom is
    very important. But it is not overwhelmingly so in all
    circumstances.

    You have been given an argument here. Try to appreciate it
    before making any fundamentalist reply...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Luc

    Greg N. Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
    > as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
    > view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
    > could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
    > choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
    > One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
    > stage.


    Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
    helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
    potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
    things.

    I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may like
    it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of visitors.

    The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might be
    offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without giving them
    a choice. I think the answer is no.

    --
    Gregor's Motorradreisen:
    http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/
    Greg N., Oct 18, 2005
    #8
  9. dorayme wrote:

    >> From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <>
    >>
    >> Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
    >> link.

    >
    > Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far as you
    > can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist view expressed
    > by you here would exclude a lot of things that could be a lot of fun,
    > the fun being ruined if one has the choice... It is nice to be
    > helplessly surprised by some things. One does not need to be so in
    > control of every thing at every stage.
    >
    > As we have been lucky enough to learn from Luigi, freedom is very
    > important. But it is not overwhelmingly so in all circumstances.
    >
    > You have been given an argument here. Try to appreciate it before
    > making any fundamentalist reply...


    Nope, I'm not going to argue. Music should be optional, the choice of
    the visitor.

    --
    -bts
    -When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Greg N. wrote:
    > Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
    > helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
    > potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
    > things.


    Trying to please "potential visitors" is meaningless. EVERYONE is a
    potential visitor, but not everyone is a "likely" visitor. So (IMOHO)
    making sure that EVERYONE is happy is a waste of time. One's efforts
    would be much better spent understanding what the likely visitors want.

    Mind you, there are no absolutes on the web, and what makes a site work
    is unique to that site. My standard reference is that google would not
    be as popular if it relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for
    cartoon network's site.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Oct 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Luc

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Greg N." <>
    >
    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
    >> as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
    >> view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
    >> could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
    >> choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
    >> One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
    >> stage.

    >
    > Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
    > helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
    > potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
    > things.
    >
    > I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may like
    > it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of visitors.
    >
    > The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might be
    > offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without giving them
    > a choice. I think the answer is no.
    >


    OK Greg N...

    What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
    things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
    got /everything/ wrong!

    In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
    this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
    exhibited about being intruded upon), it is important that some
    sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
    website! It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
    to be a nice surprise on anyone. That it is not nice for all is
    one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
    this price in a moment.

    Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
    generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
    never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.

    About civilization old chap... this is quite wrong. If you had
    your way, no one would be able to do anything publicly because
    it would offend some people. This is, to put it bluntly, stuff
    and nonsense. I hate to do this because some naturally cynical
    minds will think that somehow I am trying to push my views on
    other matters but you do not have to read it all: there is quite
    a reasonable explanation about the balance in these matters of
    the limits of freedom in my
    http://dorayme.150m.com/opinionFolder/drugLaws.html Perhaps you
    can look at the first quarter and adapt the sort of reasoning to
    this. And then go read Mill for more.

    I imagine that if you (in your present mood) ever become king,
    you would ban anyone in a public street from playing a guitar
    because it is annoying to some! I say this: I would ban it if
    people had no chioice but to listen, as outside a private house.
    Now, this is about the price, unlike the private house, one can
    be rid of an unwanted website at the click of a mouse. So the
    price is not as dramatic as you make out.

    dorayme

    (Would people please refrain from contradicting me unnecessarily
    as it causes me to get severe RSIin my tendons from replying at
    length.)
    dorayme, Oct 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Luc

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <>
    >
    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >>> From: "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <>
    >>>
    >>> Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
    >>> link.

    >>
    >> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far as you
    >> can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist view expressed
    >> by you here would exclude a lot of things that could be a lot of fun,
    >> the fun being ruined if one has the choice... It is nice to be
    >> helplessly surprised by some things. One does not need to be so in
    >> control of every thing at every stage.
    >>
    >> As we have been lucky enough to learn from Luigi, freedom is very
    >> important. But it is not overwhelmingly so in all circumstances.
    >>
    >> You have been given an argument here. Try to appreciate it before
    >> making any fundamentalist reply...

    >
    > Nope, I'm not going to argue. Music should be optional, the choice of
    > the visitor.
    >


    Ah, Beauregard! But you did not take the other instruction on
    board, namely to appreciate the argument before giving a
    fundamentalist reply...

    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Luc

    TJ Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    >> From: "Greg N." <>
    >>
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>
    >>> Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
    >>> as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
    >>> view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
    >>> could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
    >>> choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
    >>> One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
    >>> stage.

    >>
    >> Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to
    >> be helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not
    >> all potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without
    >> saying false things.
    >>
    >> I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may
    >> like
    >> it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of
    >> visitors.
    >>
    >> The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might
    >> be offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without
    >> giving them
    >> a choice. I think the answer is no.
    >>

    >
    > OK Greg N...
    >
    > What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
    > things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
    > got /everything/ wrong!


    Why? I get everything wrong on a consistant basis. I can give you the
    wife's email addy if ya don't believe me. :)

    > In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
    > this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
    > exhibited about being intruded upon),


    Or the poor souls without mute buttons on their keyboards ...

    > it is important that some
    > sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
    > website!


    Whoops! Images I don't mind, but we have a problem if you're gonna try to
    force sound on me. Ya lost me there. I wanna hear what *I* am listening
    to, not what *you* want me to listen to. Ordinarily I disagree with the
    poop-sticks that frequent this group, but in *this* case, they are right.
    You shouldn't "force" sound on a visitor, but feel free to make it an
    option.

    > It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
    > to be a nice surprise on anyone.


    I don't like *that* kind of surprise. See above.

    > That it is not nice for all is
    > one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
    > this price in a moment.


    No offense, but English isn't your first language, is it?

    > Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
    > generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
    > never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.


    You're wrong. I (like a majority of people) surf around while listening to
    music *I* like. I have no interest in having your website garble it up with
    what *you* like. Get it?

    <snip pontification>
    TJ, Oct 19, 2005
    #13
  14. Luc

    dorayme Guest

    > From: "TJ" <>

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >>> From: "Greg N." <>

    >


    >> That it is not nice for all is
    >> one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
    >> this price in a moment.

    >
    > No offense, but English isn't your first language, is it?
    >


    You are right, my first language is Martian. But I want to
    improve. Help me out here Mr.
    English-Speaker-as-a-First-Language-Man. Tell me how you found
    out about me from the sentence "That it is not nice for all is
    one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
    this price in a moment"?

    >> Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We
    >> both generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say
    >> it is never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.
    >> You're wrong.


    I am wrong to say that you do not think it worth it? OK, you do
    think it worth it. In other words we agree. So what are we
    arguing about?

    > I (like a majority of people) surf around while listening to
    > music *I* like.


    Where do you get your data on this from, your school friends
    perhaps? My observation is that a great many if not most adults
    have no music at all.

    > I have no interest in having your website garble it up with
    > what *you* like. Get it?


    This is a simple enough point, why would I not get it? You mean
    that you do not like to be intruded upon, you poor precious
    thing...

    I like to be surprised, so I hope some people judiciously
    embed things now and again to surprise me. Get it?

    dorayme

    (...who, btw, does not "surf the net" - down under we have
    beautiful oceans to do the real thing...)
    dorayme, Oct 19, 2005
    #14
  15. Luc

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if it
    > relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon network's site.


    I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's site do not
    care about what technology is used to create the effect. They would be
    equally happy if the same effect was implemented via lots of Javascript
    and images instead of Flash.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Oct 19, 2005
    #15
  16. Toby Inkster <> said:

    >> My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if
    >> it relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon
    >> network's site.

    > I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's
    > site do not care about what technology is used to create the
    > effect. They would be equally happy if the same effect was
    > implemented via lots of Javascript and images instead of Flash.


    Even so, it still agrees with my point. They want the animation and
    the fun and excitement that it brings. THAT is what adds to the
    site. Adding the same thing to google would not bring the same
    enthusiasm.

    So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
    for each site.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Oct 19, 2005
    #16
  17. Luc

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

    > Toby Inkster <> said:
    >
    > >> My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if
    > >> it relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon
    > >> network's site.

    > > I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's
    > > site do not care about what technology is used to create the
    > > effect. They would be equally happy if the same effect was
    > > implemented via lots of Javascript and images instead of Flash.

    >
    > Even so, it still agrees with my point. They want the animation and
    > the fun and excitement that it brings. THAT is what adds to the
    > site. Adding the same thing to google would not bring the same
    > enthusiasm.
    >
    > So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
    > for each site.


    And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 19, 2005
    #17
  18. Neredbojias wrote:
    > > So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
    > > for each site.>

    > And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!


    We agree!!
    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Oct 19, 2005
    #18
  19. Luc

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    > > > So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
    > > > for each site.>

    > > And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

    >
    > We agree!!


    Actually, I only visit porn sites to peruse the articles.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Oct 19, 2005
    #19
  20. Neredbojias <> said:
    >> > And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

    >> We agree!!

    > Actually, I only visit porn sites to peruse the articles.


    Not me. I there for the porn

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Oct 20, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris Leffer

    Problems with <embed> tag

    Chris Leffer, Jul 26, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    355
    Chris Leffer
    Jul 26, 2004
  2. Jason Gogela

    Tragic loss of the "embed" tag

    Jason Gogela, Nov 14, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,895
    Kevin Spencer
    Nov 15, 2005
  3. jstack
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    587
    Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    Jul 4, 2003
  4. shruds
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    757
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 27, 2006
  5. The Doormouse

    EMBED - how critical a tag is it?

    The Doormouse, Apr 14, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    335
    Jukka K. Korpela
    Apr 14, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page