- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:43:52 -0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
"David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:200302062042.h16Kgnx02727@djwhome.demon.co.uk... > > > Images as objects are badly specified though, since the UA cannot know it's > > an image until after it's performed an HTTP GET on the url, it can guess it > > That's what the type parameter is for. No, the type is indicitive, it's not definitive, the type parameter also prevents content-negotiation on the best format of image to return, with object a UA should surely send accept headers appropriate to all forms of content it accepts, with image, it's reasonable to only send image/* types. > > might be, but cannot know. > > > > Equally, what happens with an HTML document returned with a 404 status code > > Because img isn't a first class link either, you lose the information > with the 404. Not necessarily, the 404 could have links to other locations for the resource. > > returned by the server, should the object fallback be used, or should the > > HTML document be used? What about other status codes? At least with image, > > I would expect the fallback. but that way you're throwing away the HTML document returned, and I don't see how a UA can know what the author intended here. Jim.
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 05:44:03 UTC