- From: <Wesley.Upchurch@semcoinc.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:33:18 -0600
- To: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF7C90B965.BF236688-ON862573D1.00541964-862573D1.0055EABC@semcoinc.com>
Thoughts on the IMG tag: Because the draft says there still needs to be discussion on this: [Should we restrict the URI to pointing to an image? What's an image? Is PDF an image? (Safari supports PDFs in <img> elements.) How about SVG? (Opera supports those). WMFs? XPMs? HTML?] .... I suggest allowing URI pointing to any file type that is not an html/xhtml document in it's own right (because they would have their own set of header and body tags). The way a UA chooses to handle the different file formats would most likely be it's own decision (obviously normal images ..jpg, .gif, .png, etc. would always be supported as normal) or set by the end user in the settings. Could possibly just show an Icon for other file types if they elect not to have them traditionally embedded. I think this would best conform to both historical use and newer uses such as the mobil web, where one might not want larger files (like WMFs, FLAs, etc) automatically fully embedded like images are. Any thoughts?
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 18:44:40 UTC