- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:59:10 -0600
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David Bruant <bruant at enseirb-matmeca.fr> wrote: > => However, for this point, I am confused. It's true that currently, > <img> elements are not intended to have a content, but ASCII art, as > images, is probably the best (if not only ?) reason to allow text > content in img elements, thus naturally allowing the alt attribute which > doesn't exist in the "second-closest" semantic element. It's impossible at this point to make <img> elements take contents. They're void elements in every single browser in existence. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 21:59:10 UTC