- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:18:27 -0500
- To: "Bruce Boughton" <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On 4/4/07, Bruce Boughton <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk> wrote: > Jeff Schiller wrote: > > > > On 4/4/07, Bruce Boughton <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk> wrote: > >> Jeff Schiller wrote: > > And, of course, the type attribute is optional (the HTTP Content-Type > > is what is really important). This means authors would have to use a > > class: > Ouch! > > That's not too painful really... > It may not seem to painful, but I'd like to see you explain to a > designer *why* you've just made their job a little bit harder, for > seemingly no gain. Actually, the gain is fall-back content for your images as we've been discussing. If you don't want that, then continue to use the <img> element.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 16:25:01 UTC