© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
1b1ed1a
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #4)
> This is complicated by the fact that for <img> we won't know we're dealing
> with SVG until we get it.... For <object>, if it claims to be SVG and comes
> out HTML we just render the HTML, but for <img> that would seem to be somewhat
> undesirable. 404 pages in <img> tags, anyone? ;)
If we support SVG in <img> then I see no reason we wouldn't support HTML in <img> (with 404s being handled as failed loads just like for <object> elements -- <iframe> is the only one of these element that ignores errors and doesn't fall back to its fallback for them). In fact, I don't see how we couldn't. Anything that supports SVG automatically supports HTML in our architecture. They're the same thing, for all intents and purposes.
The question is whether we want to support vector graphics in <img> at all. One could argue that <img> (just like <svg:image> in SVG Tiny) should be only for raster images. But then one could also argue the opposite...