IMG FUD [was: DIV/CLASS ]

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Thu, 16 May 1996 13:03:19 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uK6ST-0002TvC@beach.w3.org>
To: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Cc: www-html <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: IMG FUD [was: DIV/CLASS ]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 May 1996 10:30:00 PDT."
             <319B6634@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM> 
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:03:19 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <319B6634@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>, Fisher Mark writes:
>  Remember, it hasn't 
>been all _that_ long (2 years) since the debate on whether inline images 
>belong on the Web -- evolution is pretty speedy here on the Internet.

This is a myth, popularized by the press, with help from James Clark
at netscape:

Exerpted from:
By Don Tennant
InfoWorld Electric

Posted at 7:18 PM PT, Feb 9, 1996

> And Tim Berners-Lee, don't forget, was the guy who didn't
> think images should be in HTML. It was [Netscape
> co-founder and vice president of technology] Marc
> Andreessen who flew against what Tim wanted, because Tim
> thought it would bring the 'Net down. Tim's a good guy,
> but he's a physicist -- he's not a market understander,
> if you know what I mean.

This is just false.

There was never a substantive debate about whether images belonged on
the web. (Anyone who believes otherwise is invited to cite sources)

There was an argument about the best syntax for expressing links to
inline images.

The facts: (excerpted from www-talk):


Tim Berners-Lee (timbl)
Sat, 27 Feb 93 16:49:48 MET 
http://www.eit.com/goodies/lists/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0202.html

>Ok, so for HTML2 let's have something for inclusion.
>I don't see any reason to limit it to images. Like
>it could be more text or whatever.

Everybody should read that whole thread to get the facts straight.

Dan