- From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
- cc: Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>, www-html@w3.org
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Benjamin Franz wrote: > ... > > Honestly, I've never quite figured out > > why turning IMG into a container wasn't used as the backward compatible > > route out of the mess involving its introduction > > Are you serious? Think about what a browser would do on a typical > existing WWW page with the contained text while it looked for the next > </IMG>.... ???. I am slow today. How is this any different than the change over of <P> to a container a few years ago? It should be possible to craft the content model to allow reliably implying of the close tag. As I noted - it *is* going to have a pretty restricted content model. Probably included free text is going to have to be omitted entirely. So the first thing a parser runs into besides allowed tags for the <IMG> container terminates the <IMG>. It is not going to be able to even remotely substitute for the functionality of <OBJECT>. The problem would have been easy to solve three and half years ago when IMG was first introduced by making it a container immediately when people realized the problem. Now the legacy browser base limits what can be done with the content model severely. It doesn't mean that <IMG> can't be improved - just that you can't improve it into a semi-substitute for <OBJECT>. -- Benjamin Franz
Received on Monday, 15 July 1996 11:53:33 UTC