4 ms·
It's too bad they went with `img` and `src` instead of listening to Tony Johnson and using `image` and `source`. Saved a few characters for needless abbreviatio
by ianstormtaylor 14y ago
It's too bad they went with `img` and `src` instead of listening to Tony Johnson and using `image` and `source`. Saved a few characters for needless abbreviation.
- felanthropop 14y agoTBL wanted to use the anchor tag for it: http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0186.html http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0186.ht... "I had imagined that figues would be reprented as <a name=fig1 href="fghjkdfghj" REL="EMBED, PRESENT">Figure </a>" That would have really changed how things evolved. Probably then anything that was specifying an external resource would have all been anchors.
- bbx 14y agoI'm actually glad they did. HTML is already very verbose. Although 'header' and 'footer' appear (supposedly) once per page, styling inline elements requires to use 'strong' or the generic 'span' tag. And it's one situation when the tag is numerously repeated, which ends up in a very low signal/noise ratio. My position may come from the fact that I type every line of code (I have no IDE, just Notepad++). But I think that there aren't enough HTML tags for us to have to use longer names in order to avoid confusion.
- jacobr 14y agoBut how many more bytes would've been sent since 1993 were they image and source? :)
- raldi 14y agoDo you also think <a href=...> should have been <anchor hypertextreference=...>?