michal frackowiak wrote on 04 Mar 2010 09:40
The problem is that having both [[html]] and [[embed]], with really similar functionality and only subtle differences (at least from the user point of view), might not be necessary.
Many HTML embed scripts need to be placed directly in the page, and cannot be iframed. YouTube player works great, but if you try e.g. a TweetMeme retweet button, it will not work, because it cannot access URL of the original page. Instead it is fooled by the iframe.
So there are a few snippets (embeds) that we can trust, and they can be placed inline, in the page. Fine. Those mostly are listed in the list of supported embeds. But most of other embeds work fine in [[html]].
So what we can do is:
- [[html]] = [[embed]] (in the implementation)
- [[html]] places the snippet directly in the code for trusted (recognized) patterns
- [[html]] iframes all other snippets
This should be all transparent to the user, without a need to understand the subtle differences in [[html]] and [[embed]], and it just works in most cases.
We discourage direct comments on this thread: to discuss it, please start a sub-thread.
Yes yes and yes. Then depreciate [[embed]]. This is a very very good idea.
Because users will now use [[html]] as their first point of embedding HTML, they will find that some codes won't work. So this will fix that problem.
For instance, the Cornify button wouldn't work in the [[HTML]] tag at the moment, which is quite problematic for those who require their unicorns supplied on demand.