- From: Bruce Boughton <bruce@bruceboughton.me.uk>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:30:22 +0100
- To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Jeff Schiller wrote: > 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. You're right of course! I think the selector issue should be borne in mind. Using a substring attribute selector to determine type seems too complicated; I would imagine applying a style to all images/videos/flash objects would be a common use case. Perhaps this is an issue for CSS rather than HTML though. Bruce
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 17:05:17 UTC