- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:43:06 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ugh... Um, I'd personally go with number 3. Basically it's this: 1) Semantic value: the image. The image has markup (a header) explaining its value if the image can't display. Not really ever appropriate. Also here the <h1> is not the heading of it's parent section. 2) Semantic value: the image and the text. Both the text and the image are semantically important. Imagine maps as headers. What differentiates this from three is that the image is semantically important (i.e. the meaning of the page would be different if it wasn't there). 3) Semantic value: the text. For this particular instance (i.e. the header is simply the text W3C), this is probably most appropriate. The text that labels this section is "W3C". In your "W3C" header example there is no image that is needed to communicate the semantic value of the text so example three is probably your most appropriate choice. On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:54:22 +0000, teklund@gargile.net <teklund@gargile.net> wrote: > > > Hi, > > These code samples show how you could include an image in a XHTML 2 > document: > > <object src="logo.png" type="image/png"><h1>W3C</h1></object> > > <h1 src="logo.png" type="image/png">W3C</h1> > > And with the help of CSS3, you could also do this: > > h1 { content: url(logo.png), contents; } > <h1>W3C</h1> > > All code samples will give the same result. When should I use which method? > > - Tobias Eklund > >
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 02:43:38 UTC