Click here to get back home

tag?
 Home | NewsGroups | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now!
 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content
Subject Author Date
tag? Frank Wein 11-04-2005
---> Re: tag? Jukka K. Korpel...11-04-2005
`--> Re: tag? Frank Wein11-04-2005
Posted by Frank Wein on November 4, 2005, 2:06 am
Please log in for more thread options

Hi,
today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
<image> tag, its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag
(IMDB.com uses it for example). I did not find anything in the web so
far where this tag comes from (ok it's also a bit difficult to search
for this, since search engines all seem to ignore < or >), someone knows
more about this tag? I found some old reference that this tag at least
already existed in 1998 or 1999, but i did not find it in the HTML 4.0
nor 3.0 nor 2.0 spec from the W3C (took a quick look at those specs).
Was this maybe introduced during the old browser wars days?

Greetings
Frank

Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on November 4, 2005, 9:12 am
Please log in for more thread options

Frank Wein wrote:

> today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
> <image> tag, its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag

It's an old feature:
"Thought you might like to know: All the browsers surveyed also support
another form of this element (which is not a part of ANY HTML standard.)
The string "IMAGE" can replace "IMG". Internet Explorer supports this
since version 1.0, Mosaic since at least 2.1, and Netscape since version
1.1."
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/i/image.htm

Presumably some authors wrote <image> because that's how they remembered
the tag from some lessons or tutorials, or browser programmers just
thought that people _might_ write so.

> (IMDB.com uses it for example).

That's bad practice: it gains nothing. And it even wastes two
characters. :-)

Browser vendors dare not drop support to it, since it just might be used
somewhere, and it really does not cost to supportit. But who knows -
after all, the expertlore about this tag may fade away, and then...

Posted by Frank Wein on November 4, 2005, 5:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options


Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Frank Wein wrote:
>
>> today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
>> <image> tag, its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag
>
> It's an old feature:
> "Thought you might like to know: All the browsers surveyed also support
> another form of this element (which is not a part of ANY HTML standard.)
> The string "IMAGE" can replace "IMG". Internet Explorer supports this
> since version 1.0, Mosaic since at least 2.1, and Netscape since version
> 1.1."
> http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/html/tagpages/i/image.htm
>
> Presumably some authors wrote <image> because that's how they remembered
> the tag from some lessons or tutorials, or browser programmers just
> thought that people _might_ write so.

Ok, thanks for the info :).

Frank


Our other projects:

Art Dolls, Fairies and Mermaids - Sunnyfaces.net

Roy's Linux, Programming and Search Engines messages

1-Script XML SitemapXML Sitemap