Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

At 10:52  +0100 25/01/08, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
>I think, these problems show mainly, that the img element
>of html is outdated since the object element was introduced.
>There is no relyable method for authors to offer other
>alternative formats, if one does not work, therefore in
>doubt (If no traditionally supported format like JPEG or PNG),
>they should not use this outdated element anymore to
>have some more control about what happens than just
>the alt attribute.
>However this shows in general the problems of multimedia
>element in the current draft with technically superfluous
>elements like img or embed and mixing functionality and
>naming in an inconsistent or imcomplete way for audio,
>video and object.
>This complete area looks more like treating the shadows of
>history than some deliberated concept ;o)
>Therefore the best approach would be to replace img by
>image with the same functionality as object and doing
>similar things concerning functionality with video and
>audio to get the same approach as in SMIL - the naming
>is only related to semantics, the authors thinks is right,
>the functionality is always the same for all of them...

I don't think I understand.  IMG, audio, and video, have semantics 
that are more precise and consequent interfaces that are more 
functional than object.  Img and video state that the embedded object 
is visually displayable;  audio and video that the object has a 
temporal aspect.  Or are you saying that the interface to object 
should be extended to cover all semantic possibilities of anything 
that might be embedded?
David Singer

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 10:37:59 UTC