- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:39:49 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 14:54 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-25, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:09:48 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> 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. [...] > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/HTMLPlus/htmlplus_21.html > > 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: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 13:44:38 UTC