- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:06:41 +0200
- To: "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "Olivier GENDRIN" <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>, "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:01:59 +0200, Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 10:07:18 UTC