W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2008

[whatwg] image element

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:14:56 +0100
Message-ID: <62504C2F-3B8E-453F-904F-BEBA52774F13@googlemail.com>

On 30 Jul 2008, at 08:17, Nicholas Shanks wrote:

>>> So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits  
>>> include:
>>> - As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would  
>>> cater for
>>> image/*
>>
>> I don't see how this is a benefit over <img>.
>
> In order of importance to me:
>
> 1. It's spelt correctly.
> 2. It's not an empty element.
> 3. It's spelt correctly.


Re: 2) ? it is, and it has to be for backwards compatibility (it is  
changed to an img element in the tokenizer, though). In terms of 1 and  
3, how about starting with something that is completely wrong, not  
just an abbreviation, such as the Referer header in HTTP? Not that  
that can actually be changed, because things rely upon it?


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 08:14:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:04 UTC