Scripsit Gus Richter:
That'a right, it was a Netscape proprietary tag and never adopted by
W3C, although I believe that all browsers actually do support it.
For some values of "all", basically "all that I care of", for some
values of "I".
The way to offer alternate content for browsers that do not recognize
<embed> or have been configured not to perform embedding is
<noembed>...</noembed>
Typically you could put a link to the embedded content there. Actually,
such a link is what you should probably _start_ with, and only then ask
yourself whether embedding makes sense, for the browsing situations
where it might work.
Although it does not require a closing tag, it's best to use it
It looks rather pointless, but I don't see what harm it could do.
[About said:
When used, a "Transitional/loose" doctype must be used whereby the
browsers are set in Quirky Mode (not really desirable).
Nonsense. You can use a Strict doctype declaration, or a custom doctype,
or a Transitional doctype including a URL, if you want to stay out of
the broken mode. And it's called "Quirks Mode". Google for it.
If you use a Strict doctype on a page that isn't Strict, the only effect
is that if someone validates the page, he gets some error message(s).
Big deal. Should _you_ want to validate such a page, you can use the
"Doctype Override" in the W3C Validator.
There is no _specification_. Vendors' descriptions are not
specifications.
