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

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:05:55 +0100
To: "Jeff Schiller" <codedread@gmail.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t5hy75va64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:48:18 +0100, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>  
> Thanks for the update from Opera (haven't had time to test/read up on
> it lately).  I'm all for restricting scriptability on images.

"SVG as image" is basically SVG with scripting disabled and no event  
interaction. Ideally "declarative" animations still run as long as they  
don't depend on events. I believe in Opera they currently run for <img>,  
but not for 'background-image'.

> As for interactivity:  FWIW, the suggestion that an image is
> non-interactive contradicts Simon's suggestion [1] with respect to the
> usemap attribute.  I would suggest that the map is what is interactive
> here, and not the image itself.

I only said that scripts were disabled... Anyway, as for being  
non-interactive, it is true that if the <img> has ismap= or usemap=  
specified things are slightly different.

> What about animated GIFs - what if some user agent allows you to
> restart/freeze/loop the animated GIF?  That is technically interaction
> and by my simple definition it would not be allowed on an image...
> what about panning?  That's interactivity too...
> So perhaps "non-interactive" is too restrictive a term?

Non-interactive in the context of HTML 5 is as far as the Web page is  
concerned. <blockquote> is also non-interactive yet the user agent could  
offer a way to get to the citation URI.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 18:02:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:25 UTC