Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:

> I think, these problems show mainly, that the img element
> of html is outdated since the object element was introduced.

Perhaps, however "object" can't replace "img" from a semantic point of view.

> 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...

Then, we'll have an "image" element, but what are the differences with 
the "img" element, only semantics ?

(note: I prefer a image element than a img element)


Guillaume LUDWIG - GMLi

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 11:18:56 UTC