[whatwg] <img> element comments
webmartians at verizon.net
Thu Aug 16 04:47:47 PDT 2007
Clarification- "never explicitly defined" should probably be "never explicitly 'limited'"
The W3C documents seem to require support for, at least, GIF, JPEG, MNG and PNG.
Apologies if this is just nit-picking.
[I'll regret saying this, but I wonder if the list can be pruned with the expiration of the GIF patents.]
From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Lachlan Hunt
Sent: Thursday, 2007 August 16 00:06
To: Ian Hickson
Subject: Re: [whatwg] <img> element comments
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.
More information about the whatwg