- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:05:33 +1000
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> And, as I mentioned in IRC, I think it should be defined that the value >> should resolve to a valid URI for an image, so that <img src="" alt=""> >> isn't conforming, except in this rare case: >> >> <p xml:base="foo.png"><img src="" alt=""/></p> > > Ok but... what's an image? Do we exclude PDFs and SVG? (Safari and Opera > respectively support those.) I think you're putting too much emphasis on the words "for an image" in what I wrote. I think my intention was to avoid cases where it's pointing to itself. In practical terms, it just needs to point to file in a format that browsers support for <img>, but HTML has never explicitly defined which image formats browsers should or should not support, and I don't think it should. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2007 21:05:33 UTC