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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:49:38 GMT