W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2005

RE: HTML Improvement/Suggestion

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:38:34 -0000
Message-ID: <6AE97EC7-CCFB-4D40-B5CE-8282BFDEA9C1@s15.mail.x-port.net>
To: "'Spartanicus'" <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>

Spartanicus,

> Whether or not that includes 
> XHTML 2 is unclear to me given the presence of legacy 
> elements such as <img> apparently for reasons of backward 
> compatibility.

Are you sure you have seen that somewhere, or just assuming that this is the
motivation? I don't think that anyone has said that using <img> is to do
with backwards compatibility.

<img> is a bit like <a> in that sometimes an author wants to insert an image
in a document, and it just *is* an image (or a link, in the case of <a>). In
other words, it's not a list item that is represented by an image, or a
heading that is represented by an image, it's just an image. (If it was a
heading, for example, then <h src="..." etc.> would be a better choice for
the author.)

When you establish a feature that people feel is desirable, the next
question is obviously going to be, what should this tag be called? It could
be called something new like <image>, or it could re-use an old name, like
<img>. Questions like, 'does it do the same job as the old tag', are
relevant here, as is evaluating whether there is 'mindshare' that can be
leveraged. In the case of <img> I think it is clear that there is a lot of
mindshare in using the current name, and that both behaviour and semantics
are pretty much the same.

But *none* of this has anything to do with backwards compatibility.

Regards,

Mark


Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2005 20:39:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:04 GMT