- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhbnc.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 16:51:52 +0000
- CC: www-html <www-html@w3.org>
OK, perhaps I was unclear here : my idea of allowing > <LINK REL="CACHE" HREF=uri> > > where "uri" is the URI of an HTML page which contains nothing > (apart from the syntactic essentials) other than a series of > <IMG> tags for the images to be pre-cached. was explicitly for the case where there are multiple images to be cached; in this way, there is a single <LINK> to a single HTML page with multiple <IMG> tags, one for each image to be cached. It has no advantages whatsoever when only one image is to be cached, in which case > <LINK REL="CACHE" HREF=uri> > > where "uri" is the URI of an image to be pre-cached. is clearly to be preferred. ** Phil. -------- > [DJW:] I would say that the URIs should be the images > themselves, if you go down this route, although I think > that style sheets might be a better route. Even in an > "a" element, is is perfectly reasonable to reference > an image directly, rather than an HTML wrapper for it. -- Philip TAYLOR Webmaster, Information Services Royal Holloway & Bedford New College Tel: +44 (0)1784 443172 (Office/answer'phone) Tel: +44 (0)7970 443172 (Orange/answer'phone) Fax: +44 (0)1784 434348 Mailto:P.Taylor@Rhbnc.Ac.Uk
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 11:54:49 UTC