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

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: WeBMartians <webmartians@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:47:47 -0400
Message-ID: <001301c7dffb$44c8e3b0$640a0a0a@pirate>
Clarification- "never explicitly defined" should probably be "never explicitly 'limited'"
	The W3C documents seem to require support for, at least, GIF, JPEG, MNG and PNG.
	Apologies if this is just nit-picking.
		[I'll regret saying this, but I wonder if the list can be pruned with the expiration of the GIF patents.]
BdG

-----Original Message-----
From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
Sent: Thursday, 2007 August 16 00:06
To: Ian Hickson
Cc: WHATWG
Subject: Re: [whatwg] <img> element comments

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 Thursday, 16 August 2007 04:47:47 UTC

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