Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI (. Don't
> forget our Design Principles.
> <
> j.j.

I checked it with several different browsers available for me (Geckos,
Konqueror, Opera, Amaya, ...) with HTML and XHTML documents and 
there was no problem, either they display both - image and content or 
only one of them. 
I think, this is sufficient for backwards compatibility - no loss of
information at all, if authors do everything correct. None of them crashed 
or did really nonsense with it, not even inside XHTML, this is much better
than some other ideas to improve (X)HTML in a backwards compatible way. 
On the other hand, there is canvas too - it is empty without scripting and
could be a replacement for img too with an additional attribute src. And
this has currently no longlife history outside the current draft.

And - because I'm not a member of the working group, I'm allowed too 
to think about what is useful for authors and users in the future, not just
about historical errors of user-agent ;o)

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 17:49:21 UTC