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

[whatwg] [HTML5] 2.9.16. The samp element

From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:02:58 +0100
Message-ID: <1197392578.6515.62.camel@a1dmin.vola.spe.com.pl>

Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 14:44 +0100, Christoph P?per pisze:
> 2007-12-11 05:56 Ian Hickson:
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Christoph Paeper wrote:
> >>
> >> Would the following be inadequate usage according to this  
> >> specification?
> >>
> >>   <a href="foo.img"><samp><img src="foo.t.img" alt="..."/></samp></a>
> >>
> > Yes. The former would be appropriate if a computer output the given  
> > image
> > and that was the subject under discussion;
> 
> That means screenshots, doesn't it?
> But computers "output" many more kinds of images, e.g. when they  
> render, scan, read out cameras or other media, reel through films ...  
> I think it's hard to tell the essential difference.
> 
> Of course almost nobody actually uses |samp| in galleries and the  
> like at the moment, so it's not a big deal.
> 
> > I'm not convinced that there's really a need to unambiguously mark  
> > up thumbnails as distinct from anything else, though.
> 
> Neither am I, but there are programs or browser plugins that could  
> make good use out of this information. OTOH it might fit better into  
> the |rel| (or |rev|) attribute of the surrounding |a| (or it's done  
> by a predefined class for |img|).
> Another question would be whether the linked image had to be the  
> original (e.g. the full-size screenshot) or just a better  
> representation of it (e.g. the larger scan of a book cover).

We are talking about three different objects: a sample, an abstract and
an excerpt.  Throwing them all into one sack does not seem to be a
brilliant idea to me.

Chris
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 09:02:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC