On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:01:59 +0200, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com> wrote: > Still, it would be good if the spec allowed for it so that one future > day we can use <img> consistently ... the proposal to add <image> > (separate to <img>) has merit I believe... leaving <img> as is for > compatibility and introducing <image> for consistency with <video> and > <audio>. I vote for this option. Apparently it was not clear before: we can't change parsing rules for <img> and <image>. <image> turns into <img> during parsing for legacy reasons. Neither element has a closing tag. I believe the goal for this WG is to remain backwards compatible. Not invent a new language on top of the old one. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:07:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 13 October 2008 01:39:00 GMT