>No, no, if you can't display FIG you aren't going to be able to
>display IMG. Put another way, if you can display IMG you can handle
>FIG. And as the point of the alternate stuff (the contents of the
>FIGTEXT element in FIG) is to be displayed *only if FIG isn't
>handled* you shouldn't put IMG in it.
It is not true that the ability to display IMGs implies the ability to
display FIGs... take the case of current web browsers! Consider those that
call external viewing programs to draw inline images (inside the browser
window)... these external viewers often lack the capability for displaying
transparent overlays. FIGs really imply that the graphics engine is built
into the browser, or at least written specifically for the web browser.
By expanding the capabilities of the <FIG> tag to include <IMG>s in the
alternate text, we give existing graphical browsers (i.e. HTML 2.0) a lease
on life, allowing them to display usable graphics (often ore than one) in
place of a figure. This would be especially useful for browsers unable to
handle client-side image maps in cases where server-side maps are
inappropriate (i.e. because of heavy usage.)