On 30 Jul 2008, at 4:49 am, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
I asked for the resurrection of HTML+'s imagefallback/image
element
last month. The reasons I cited were exactly the same as the reasons
being given now in favour of the video element, however I was
Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: [whatwg] image element
Aye, but img gets me very angry.
I believe this was the worst moment in the history of HTML:
http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html
Why did nobody stop this guy at the time? We're still cleaning up his
mess 15 years
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
To continue this:
The video and audio elements are being introduced because they have DOM APIs
that exceed that of object, and we don't want to overload the general
element with features specific to certain kinds of media. By analogy, images
could
Nicholas Shanks writes:
On 30 Jul 2008, at 4:49 am, Ian Hickson wrote:
I don't see how this is a benefit over img.
In order of importance to me:
1. It's spelt correctly.
3. It's spelt correctly.
Having both img and image elements in HTML doing different things
would be confusing. Many
On 30 Jul 2008, at 08:17, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
So again, I ask for an image element to replace img. Benefits
include:
- As video would cater for video/* MIME types, image would
cater for
image/*
I don't see how this is a benefit over img.
In order of importance to me:
1. It's spelt
On 9 Feb 2007, at 15:51, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
Nicholas Shanks wrote:
Yes, like OBJECT, but with a different name. A nicer name than
IMG. One
with three vowels. One that only accepts image/* content types. One
with a more specific usage that can be controlled independently of
OBJECT
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:43:17 +0100, Nicholas Shanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was originally just making an off-the-cuff hostile remark about
IMG, but the more i think about it the more I dislike them pesky and
restrictive alt attributes!
They are, for one, backwards compatible. (Even though
