WD-xhtml2-20050527: img element not required

Hello,

I'm confused by the reintroduction of the 'img' element in the latest 
XHTML 2.0 Working Draft.  Its reappearance seems contrary to one of the 
stated aims of XHTML 2 (improving structure without the need for 
backwards compatibility).

The draft states that "... the img element is not strictly necessary, 
but is included to ease the transition to XHTML2."  However, I don't 
believe it succeeds in this aim.

Here is a fairly typical img element as it might appear in XHTML 1.0:

     <img src="spiggy.jpg" width="160" height="120"
     style="border: 1px solid #999"
     alt="Picture of cat rolling on the floor." />

This is how I think it'd appear in XHTML 2.0 (27 May 2005 Working Draft):

     <img src="spiggy.jpg"
     style="width: 160px; height: 120px; border: 1px solid #999">Picture
     of cat rolling on the floor.</img>

Without using an img element it would probably translate to the following:

     <p src="spiggy.jpg"
     style="width: 160px; height: 120px; border: 1px solid #999">Picture
     of cat rolling on the floor.</p>

If an HTML author is able to cope with the transition from the first 
example to the second example, I fail to see why the third example would 
cause a problem.  In my opinion the only way an img element can "ease 
transition" to XHTML 2.0 is by having the exact same syntax as it does 
in XHTML 1.1!  :o)

However, I *don't* think there's any point in retaining <img> at all. 
It serves no functional purpose, and XHTML 2.0 should be about making a 
clean break.

Surely none of us want to still be seeing img elements in 2019.  :o)

Thank you,

Dave

Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 22:46:42 UTC