- From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:02:58 +0100
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 14:44 +0100, Christoph P?per pisze: > 2007-12-11 05:56 Ian Hickson: > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Christoph Paeper wrote: > >> > >> Would the following be inadequate usage according to this > >> specification? > >> > >> <a href="foo.img"><samp><img src="foo.t.img" alt="..."/></samp></a> > >> > > Yes. The former would be appropriate if a computer output the given > > image > > and that was the subject under discussion; > > That means screenshots, doesn't it? > But computers "output" many more kinds of images, e.g. when they > render, scan, read out cameras or other media, reel through films ... > I think it's hard to tell the essential difference. > > Of course almost nobody actually uses |samp| in galleries and the > like at the moment, so it's not a big deal. > > > I'm not convinced that there's really a need to unambiguously mark > > up thumbnails as distinct from anything else, though. > > Neither am I, but there are programs or browser plugins that could > make good use out of this information. OTOH it might fit better into > the |rel| (or |rev|) attribute of the surrounding |a| (or it's done > by a predefined class for |img|). > Another question would be whether the linked image had to be the > original (e.g. the full-size screenshot) or just a better > representation of it (e.g. the larger scan of a book cover). We are talking about three different objects: a sample, an abstract and an excerpt. Throwing them all into one sack does not seem to be a brilliant idea to me. Chris
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 09:02:58 UTC