W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2007

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:05:33 +1000
Message-ID: <46C3CD0D.5090608@lachy.id.au>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> And, as I mentioned in IRC, I think it should be defined that the value 
>> should resolve to a valid URI for an image, so that <img src="" alt=""> 
>> isn't conforming, except in this rare case:
>>
>> <p xml:base="foo.png"><img src="" alt=""/></p>
> 
> Ok but... what's an image? Do we exclude PDFs and SVG? (Safari and Opera 
> respectively support those.)

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the words "for an image" in 
what I wrote.  I think my intention was to avoid cases where it's 
pointing to itself.  In practical terms, it just needs to point to file 
in a format that browsers support for <img>, but HTML has never 
explicitly defined which image formats browsers should or should not 
support, and I don't think it should.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 21:05:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:36 UTC