W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > April to June 2005

WD-xhtml2-20050527: img element not required

From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 23:46:36 +0100
Message-ID: <42A0DDCC.30308@dmh.org.uk>
To: www-html-editor@w3.org

Hello,

I'm confused by the reintroduction of the 'img' element in the latest 
XHTML 2.0 Working Draft.  Its reappearance seems contrary to one of the 
stated aims of XHTML 2 (improving structure without the need for 
backwards compatibility).

The draft states that "... the img element is not strictly necessary, 
but is included to ease the transition to XHTML2."  However, I don't 
believe it succeeds in this aim.

Here is a fairly typical img element as it might appear in XHTML 1.0:

     <img src="spiggy.jpg" width="160" height="120"
     style="border: 1px solid #999"
     alt="Picture of cat rolling on the floor." />

This is how I think it'd appear in XHTML 2.0 (27 May 2005 Working Draft):

     <img src="spiggy.jpg"
     style="width: 160px; height: 120px; border: 1px solid #999">Picture
     of cat rolling on the floor.</img>

Without using an img element it would probably translate to the following:

     <p src="spiggy.jpg"
     style="width: 160px; height: 120px; border: 1px solid #999">Picture
     of cat rolling on the floor.</p>

If an HTML author is able to cope with the transition from the first 
example to the second example, I fail to see why the third example would 
cause a problem.  In my opinion the only way an img element can "ease 
transition" to XHTML 2.0 is by having the exact same syntax as it does 
in XHTML 1.1!  :o)

However, I *don't* think there's any point in retaining <img> at all. 
It serves no functional purpose, and XHTML 2.0 should be about making a 
clean break.

Surely none of us want to still be seeing img elements in 2019.  :o)

Thank you,

Dave
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 22:46:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:17:54 GMT