[whatwg] <img> element comments

[Lachlan Hunt]

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/