- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:28:47 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
2007/6/27, Robert Burns: > > On Jun 27, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > >> Is there an interop table for the "image" element? > >> Which user agents support it? > > > > Simple test case at <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/imagetag/>. > > iCab, Firefox, Opera, Safari and IE6 present both the image and > fallback. lynx renders the fallback only. > > By fallback do you meant @alt value? Or do you mean the contents of > the element? Content. See http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C%21DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Ctitle%3Etesting%20support%20for%20the%20image%20tag%20in%20UAs%3C/title%3E%0A%3Cimage%20src%3D%22image%22%20alt%3D%22fallback%20in%20@alt%22%3Efallback%20as%20element%20content%3C/image%3E Clearly, Firefox parses  tag is simply ignored) so the text "fallback as element content" is actually a sibling of the image. Almost identical behavior in IE7: there is an "/IMG" element in the tree (yes an element with a name starting with a slash, and note that it's an IMG, not IMAGE) Opera 9 behaves the same as Firefox. If you replace the @src with an inexistent image, all three browsers show the @alt content as fallback (but keeps the other "fallback" since it's not considered fallback content but a sibling of the image). > If its the content of the element, then it sound like we found our > answer. No? Er, no, because "fallback as element content" is always shown: it's not fallback content. In other words: current browsers really treat <image> as <img> (even the DOM shows 'img' elements, not 'image' ones). > If its @alt then we need another element name. We need another element name (I'd vote for <picture> if we really need such an element, i.e. if <object> is not enough) -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 20:29:10 UTC