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

Re: WD-xhtml2-20050527: img element not required

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:57:53 +0200
Message-ID: <42A0E071.4080403@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org

Dave Hodder wrote:

> 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)

I think XHTML 2.0 should allow alt="..." as an alternative to enclosed 
alternate text. It could be used until content inside an element is 
sufficiently supported by all major browsers.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 22:57:44 GMT

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