Re: fear of "invisible metadata"

At 14:54 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-25, Simon Pieters wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:09:48 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <> wrote:


[replacing img with a proper container, for richer fallback]

>> And the spec's definition of <object> is rocket science to most authors.
> Not really. <img src=foo alt=fallback> -> <object
> data=foo>fallback</object>

Try to read the definition for <object> as if you're an average web publisher
and have never heard of it before. You'll get lost in a truckload of
attributes and sub elements and their attributes, and nowhere do you get a
clear hint that any of it can and is allowed to be used for images.

Talk with web publishers. Most do not understand <object> at all.


> Now "<image>" is parsed as if it were "<img>" in browsers (and per HTML5).

Why was it given up on?

> So <image> can't be used.

Well, then perhaps <picture>fallback<picture>, or <pic>fallback</pic>, for
less typing ;)

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <>

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 13:44:38 UTC