[whatwg] image element
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Wed Jul 30 08:14:56 PDT 2008
On 30 Jul 2008, at 08:17, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
>>> So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits
>>> - As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would
>>> cater for
>> I don't see how this is a benefit over <img>.
> In order of importance to me:
> 1. It's spelt correctly.
> 2. It's not an empty element.
> 3. It's spelt correctly.
Re: 2) — it is, and it has to be for backwards compatibility (it is
changed to an img element in the tokenizer, though). In terms of 1 and
3, how about starting with something that is completely wrong, not
just an abbreviation, such as the Referer header in HTTP? Not that
that can actually be changed, because things rely upon it…
More information about the whatwg