- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:11:29 -0500
Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:25:12 +0600, Matthew Raymond > <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Hmm... Is <img> ever non-presentational? Radical thought: Deprecate >> <img>. > > Why? Aren't there semantic images? Might be. As Anne suggests, a picture of a product might be a good example. It was more of a question than a serious suggestion. > Maybe instead deprecate <img> for presentational images, leaving it only > for semantic images (with non-empty alt required). Sounds like a good idea. We should probably also consider how <object> fits into this, though. Can it completely replace <img>??? It certainly has better support for fallback content.
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2006 04:11:29 UTC