W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 1999

Re: type attr. for IMG tag

From: Inanis Brooke <alatus@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:12:27 -0800
Message-ID: <000c01be63a2$1a353920$8a30b3d1@alatus>
To: "www-html" <www-html@w3.org>
|> The type attribute would theoretically be good. Nonetheless who is going
to
|
|Theoretically yes. But it would be a waste of text since a web server will
|return the type anyway.
|
|IMG is on its way out for the OBJECT element... though by the time major
|browsers support that fully they'll be doing XML, so it's a moot point.
|
|Rob
|

Very valid point, Rob, but I fear XML may still be a fair distance off. I
don't want to pretend like I know everything, but Scott Adams, the "Dilbert"
cartoonist, stated it best in "The Dilbert Future" when he said something to
the extent that new technologies need lots of time out in the real world
before they get all the bugs worked out. HTML has had that time. XML hasn't.
Last I head, MS was still trying to revolutionize XML, making a time in
which XML is reliable as HTML a little further away.
Of course, Mr. Adams was discussing ISDN v. Cable Modems for high-speed home
connections, but I think his general message still applies: Human error is
inevitable, but can be overcome with a lot of time and money. :) Just think
of all of the new mistakes people will have to learn about with XML. They'll
probably have to learn these things "the hard way." Most of them have
already been through that painful process with HTML. :)
Don't want to correct anyone, just speaking my semi-paranoid fears...

Daniel [inanis (edf)]
Received on Monday, 1 March 1999 00:10:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:38 GMT