W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2008

Re: HTML IMG tag.

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:52:22 +0100
Message-ID: <487FB106.9090000@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org
CC: Joćo Miguel Lopes Moreira <multi.jmlm_1970@hotmail.com>

Joćo Miguel Lopes Moreira wrote:
> I am not asking for a result. I am asking for a tag, or keyword, or
+ URL that have reference to it, or informs how can it be achieved.

Those are all "how to" questions.  This list isn't about helping people 
to write "base standard HTML" (for any reasonable interpretation of 
that), but about deciding what will be in the next generation of HTML 
specification and improving the current specifications.

The other issue is that your question was about URLs. HTML doesn't
specify, and more generally, the W3C, doesn't specify, the form of URLs;
that is the responsibility of another organisation, the IETF.

> According to Bjoern Hoehrmann answer (link), is possible but it only
> works in Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 and above (do not know yet about
> other browsers); and so it is not a base standard HTML, but a later

RFC 2397 will be ten years old next month!  It predates the version of 
HTML that most people use by over a year.

add-on; unless Microsoft popular browser did not implement totally the
base HTML standard!

Internet Explorer is actually well known for not fully implementing the 
current widely used version of the HTML standard, which in current form 
has been around for eight and a half years, and that was only a small 
update of a version that is over ten years old.  (Even more so, it is 
known for not implementing CSS  fully going back a similar number of years.)

Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:

 > such questions than "WWW-Html".  It would, perhaps,
 > have been more helpful if David could have suggested
 > a such an appropriate place.

I actually answered the question, instead.  Even if one doesn't know 
what an RFC is, a Google search, in English, for "RFC 2397" will get you 
the actual source document, as first hit, and a Google search in 
Portuguese will get you a (faulty[A]) translation, that would still 
point you in the right direction.

[A] Although I don't read Portuguese, it was obvious that "data:" should 
not have been translated (to "dados:").

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:51:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:20 UTC