Re: Inlined image format
ellson@hotsand.att.com
From: ellson@hotsand.att.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 18:43:04 EST
Original-From: hotsand!ellson (John Ellson)
Message-id: <9401252343.AA12425@hotsand.dacsand>
To: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Inlined image format
Content-Length: 1674
OK I think I've found my answer.
I understand from Tony Sanders that a more general inline image format
is coming with <FIG>. (Does this include an inlined window?)
And I understand from Jon that <IMG> is more of a minumum subset that
is guaranteed to be available for navigational icons.
Thanks everybody.
John Ellson
AT&T Bell Labs
------------------------------------------------------
> From: Tony Sanders <sanders@BSDI.COM>
>
> HTML+ has defined a more general function <FIG>, you should be talking about
> how to make that do what you want instead of messing with <IMG>.
>
> --sanders
-------------------------------------------------------
> From: jonm@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Jon E. Mittelhauser)
>
> >> Also, inlined images and external images have a very different use in
> >> practice. If I find a document that has 10 inlined images that are
> >> links to other pages or files and they are launched into 10 external
> >> windows how in the world do I know which is which?!?
> >
> >As a proposal couldn't you use the delayed image mechanism of Mosaic?
> >i.e. if the image requires an external view (according to .mailcap)
> >then the user has to click on an icon to display that image.
>
> Yes, something like this could be used. However, it does still present
> a very different feel. If I have inlined images used as buttons, it
> would be a real pain to have to load all (10 for example) into external
> players to figure out which one takes me to the home page. All I was
> trying to point out is that by defining a limited set (e.g. Gifs and
> Xbms currently), an author can be guarnteed that the doc will look and
> feel exactly as intended.
>