W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Guillaume Ludwig <contact@gmli.fr>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:18:31 +0100
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200801251218.32737.contact@gmli.fr>

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 of html is outdated since the object element was introduced.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



-- 
Guillaume LUDWIG - GMLi
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 11:18:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC