- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:38:34 -0000
- 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 UTC