Re: Proposal: accessibility revision for the img element...

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:01:59 +0200, Ben Boyle <>  
> Still, it would be good if the spec allowed for it so that one future
> day we can use <img> consistently ... the proposal to add <image>
> (separate to <img>) has merit I believe... leaving <img> as is for
> compatibility and introducing <image> for consistency with <video> and
> <audio>. I vote for this option.

Apparently it was not clear before: we can't change parsing rules for  
<img> and <image>. <image> turns into <img> during parsing for legacy  
reasons. Neither element has a closing tag. I believe the goal for this WG  
is to remain backwards compatible. Not invent a new language on top of the  
old one.

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:07:18 UTC