Re: a bad idea (fwd)

Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)


Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
To: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
cc: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: a bad idea (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.93.960715020627.8487B-100000@fully.organic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960715074039.1919C-100000@ns.viet.net>

On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> ...
> > Honestly, I've never quite figured out
> > why turning IMG into a container wasn't used as the backward compatible
> > route out of the mess involving its introduction
> 
> Are you serious?  Think about what a browser would do on a typical
> existing WWW page with the contained text while it looked for the next
> </IMG>.... 

???. I am slow today. How is this any different than the change over of
<P> to a container a few years ago? It should be possible to craft the
content model to allow reliably implying of the close tag. As I noted - it
*is* going to have a pretty restricted content model. Probably included
free text is going to have to be omitted entirely. So the first thing a
parser runs into besides allowed tags for the <IMG> container terminates
the <IMG>. It is not going to be able to even remotely substitute for the
functionality of <OBJECT>. The problem would have been easy to solve three
and half years ago when IMG was first introduced by making it a container
immediately when people realized the problem. Now the legacy browser base
limits what can be done with the content model severely. It doesn't mean
that <IMG> can't be improved - just that you can't improve it into
a semi-substitute for <OBJECT>.

-- 
Benjamin Franz