From: Jonathan Gapen <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: SRC attribute for HR/UL/DIR/MENU? Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:49:23 (-0600) Message-Id: <19960614.79CCDB0.D4FC@sarah.amiga.net> I haven't seen any discussion of this bit of HTML on this list, and = while it's not as important as some of the other proposed HTML 3.2 changes, I = think it bears mentioning. One of the neat little touch I really like in the HTML 3.0 proposal = was the addition of the SRC attribute for HR, and the list tags. Then, I wa= s quite disappointed to see HTML 3.2 leaves it out. I'd like to see a SRC= attribute for HR, which specifies an image to use as the horizontal rule= , and a SRC attribute for UL, which specifies an image to use as the bullet, w= ith a possible SRC for LI, which overrides the list's image for that one item.= Here's why: * Better compatibility with text-based browsers. They can safely ignore = the SRC attribute, and render horizontal rules and lists in their normal fas= hion.=20 Eliminate the all-too-common <IMG SRC=3D"bluebar.gif" ALT=3D"-----------= --------"> abomination. * Easier page design, especially for authors typing HTML directly in a t= ext editor. Type the name of the bullet image once, instead of once per ite= m. * Proper structure-based markup, so software analyzing document structur= e knows what is a list, and what is a horizontal rule. * Smaller file sizes. I've seen many HTML authors ask how to create a proper horizontal ru= le for text-based browsers, usually wondering if <IMG SRC=3D"bluebar.gif" ALT=3D= "<HR>"> was legal. I'm quite sure that many people would jump at the chance to = use <HR SRC=3D"bluebar.gif"> instead. Similarly, I'm sure many people (myse= lf included) would also jump at the chance to use <UL SRC=3D"greenball.gif"> <LI>Item one <LI>Item two <LI>Item three </UL> instead of <IMG SRC=3D"greenball.gif">Item one<BR> <IMG SRC=3D"greenball.gif">Item two<BR> <IMG SRC=3D"greenball.gif">Item three<BR>. This addition wouldn't require anybody to change their documents, as= the old, broken way will still work fine, but will add an easy new way to so= lve problems as old as Mosaic. Nor would it require users to change browser= s, because it's perfectly backwards-compatible. (Maybe you can see why I t= hought it was one of the neater bits of HTML 3.0?) Anyway, is it worth submitting an Internet Draft? --=20 Jonathan Gapen (firstname.lastname@example.org) Bread in, toast out. How does it DO that?