Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
And, as I mentioned in IRC, I think it should be defined that the value
should resolve to a valid URI for an image, so that <img src="" alt="">
isn't conforming, except in this rare case:
<p xml:base="foo.png"><img src="" alt=""/></p>
Ok but... what's an image? Do we exclude PDFs and SVG? (Safari and Opera
respectively support those.)
I think you're putting too much emphasis on the words "for an image" in
what I wrote. I think my intention was to avoid cases where it's
pointing to itself. In practical terms, it just needs to point to file
in a format that browsers support for <img>, but HTML has never
explicitly defined which image formats browsers should or should not
support, and I don't think it should.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
