- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:51:39 +1000
- To: Paul Crowley <ciphergoth@gmail.com>
- Cc: lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au, www-html@w3.org
Paul Crowley wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:46:27 +1000, Lachlan Hunt > <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au> wrote: >><h src="/images/heading" type="image/png,image/gif">Heading</h> >> >>which is better than having to do >> >><h><object data="/images/heading" >>type="image/png,image/gif">Heading</object></h> > > > Why is the first example better than the second? It's slightly more > concise, but it's far from clear that it's worth the complexity and > confusion of having two different mechanisms to do the same job in > order to save 17 characters. It just seems like a perfect example of > the sort of thing a well designed standard is not supposed to do - > don't resolve disputes on how to do something by putting both in the > standard. This document explains the reasons why, and gives some good examples. http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#whyxhtml2 I also helps make the source code easier to read, cause there's less elements. The reason is similar for making every element be able to be a link. For example, this is an abbr, image and a link: <a href="http://www.w3.org/"> <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"> <object data="/Icons/w3c_home" type="image/png,image/gif>W3C</object> </abbr> </a> compared with: <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium" href="http://www.w3.org/" src="/Icons/w3c_home" alt="W3C" type="image/png,image/gif">W3C</abbr> -- Lachlan Hunt http://www.lachy.id.au/ lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au
Received on Sunday, 25 July 2004 23:52:16 UTC