- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:54:58 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: 'Spartanicus' <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>, www-html@w3.org
Quoting Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>: > <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.) Sometimes I want to insert a <video> in my document, or a <audio> fragment, or some <radio>, or an <animation> or a <three-dee-image> etc. Instead of inventing a lot of elements the HTML WG once thought of <object>. The rationale was also that <object> was eventually going to replace <img> from what I've heard. (That was also the reason <img> was out of the draft and <object> has been tested everywhere for interop.) Now you're arguing that sometimes specific elements are good? For linking, <a href=""> can just be <span href="">. After all, an <a> element without "href" specified has similar semantics to a <span>. Why wouldn't the opposite be true? And I believe the opposite is true following the current wording... For embedding random objects, why can't <object data="">/<object src=""> be replaced with <div src=""> or <span src=""> (block level replaced element versus inline level replaced element). Same thing, imho. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Sunday, 11 December 2005 20:54:58 UTC