- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:14:56 +0100
On 30 Jul 2008, at 08:17, Nicholas Shanks wrote: >>> So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits >>> include: >>> - As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would >>> cater for >>> image/* >> >> I don't see how this is a benefit over <img>. > > In order of importance to me: > > 1. It's spelt correctly. > 2. It's not an empty element. > 3. It's spelt correctly. Re: 2) ? it is, and it has to be for backwards compatibility (it is changed to an img element in the tokenizer, though). In terms of 1 and 3, how about starting with something that is completely wrong, not just an abbreviation, such as the Referer header in HTTP? Not that that can actually be changed, because things rely upon it? -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 08:14:56 UTC