3 ms·
Seeing this reminds me of the question: "why do we have an <img> element? Why not an <icon> element? Or an <include> element?" [1] Back in the olden times shipp
by emmanueloga_ 6y ago
Seeing this reminds me of the question: "why do we have an <img> element? Why not an <icon> element? Or an <include> element?" [1] Back in the olden times shipping a feature like the `url(path:)` above was enough to have it become a defacto standard!
Meta: link [1] uses text-fragments [2] that seem super useful to me but apparently are not implemented by Firefox (yet!)
1: https://diveinto.html5doctor.com/past.html#:~:text=original%20question:%20why%20do%20we%20have%20an%20%3Cimg%3E%20element https://diveinto.html5doctor.com/past.html#:~:text=original%...
2: https://wicg.github.io/scroll-to-text-fragment/ https://wicg.github.io/scroll-to-text-fragment/
- c-smile 6y agoWell, we have plenty of images already: <img>, <picture>, <figure>, <object>, <iframe> can be used for that purposes too. It is just unclear how <icon> is different from <img>. As of <include> (so called client side includes) Sciter has them [1] as they make sense in precisely desktop environments - when files included from local sources (synchronously). [1] <include> in Sciter: https://sciter.com/forums/topic/import-html-in-html/ https://sciter.com/forums/topic/import-html-in-html/