- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:34:05 -0400
- To: Douglas Rand <drand@sgi.com>, Ka-Ping Yee <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>
- Cc: Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@hol.gr>, www-style@w3.org
At 10:52 AM 8/21/96 -0400, Douglas Rand wrote: >Ka-Ping Yee wrote: >I'd like to say quite the opposite. The usage of images is not a whim >of the document designer. It isn't really equivalent to put text in >place of an image either. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Right now there is no way of specifying that an image is purely presentational. I agree with the first poster that this is a limitation of the current specification. That means that images which are ESSENTIAL (i.e a picture of a painting in a discussion of painting) are encoded using the same tags as "KUEL FONT IMAGES" and navigational arrows. The former is content. The latter is presentation. You might want to treat content-images and eye-candy images differently. For instance you might want to only download one of them. Or you might build a list of content-images on a site, as if it were a "list of figures". Paul Prescod
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 1996 11:38:28 UTC