W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0807300845140.30692@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> I still don't like the idea of only a certain set of types as it is 
> isn't forward-looking and it requires drawing some lines in the sand and 
> say this type is 'blessed' and this type is not.

Sure, I don't think we should list specific types, certainly not as a 
closed set anyway.

> I struggled a little bit with the defintiion of an 'image' from an HTML 
> perspective.  I think the best one I can muster is:
> The purpose of an image is to display a visual, non-interactive 
> representation that cannot be sufficiently achieved through other markup 
> (such as text, hyperlink or table).
> Anyway, with the above definition of an image, I think it would be 
> sufficient to say:
> "If the UA understands how to treat the resource as an image, then this 
> is sufficient for the UA to render it, otherwise the alt text shall be 
> used."
> This would rule out things like text and HTML since, by definition, 
> those things are not images.

Actually it wouldn't rule out anything from the author point of view, as 
that is an implementation conformance requirement, not an authoring one.

I've put some text in the spec that is based on the ideas you put forward.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 09:32:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:36 UTC