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

Re: separator/seperator Re: About XHTML 2.0

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:54:38 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c80105060406547527506a@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

Since the traversal of a link is optional, if I didn't include the
sub-document, image  or media in my content, doesn't that now change
what my document means.

I don't think embedded content like images breaks the web concept, I
think it's integral to our understanding of documents and the web. The
fact that images reside separately and are not part of the document
itself is a technological issue, not a semantic one. Non-text isn't a
special case. Some images just don't belong outside their document.

Orion Adrian

On 6/4/05, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Images and sub-documents aren't content? This is news to me and is
> 
> One of the consequences of Mosaic's addition of images was a weakening of
> the web concept.  In a pure web concept, img elements are really a special
> type of link that the browser pre-fetches and displays in place of the link,
> but visual browser tend to treat them as part of a compound document (they
> are more in the PDF market than the hyperlinking market).  Front page
> even uses the term web to mean a self contained compound document.
> 
>
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2005 13:54:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:03 UTC