- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:57:53 +0200
- To: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org
Dave Hodder wrote: > 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) I think XHTML 2.0 should allow alt="..." as an alternative to enclosed alternate text. It could be used until content inside an element is sufficiently supported by all major browsers. ~Grauw -- Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands. Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 22:57:44 UTC