3 ms·
"[N]one of this answers the original question: why do we have an <img> element? Why not an <icon> element? Or an <include> element? Why not a hyperlink with an
by RyanMcGreal 14y ago
"[N]one of this answers the original question: why do we have an <img> element? Why not an <icon> element? Or an <include> element? Why not a hyperlink with an include attribute, or some combination of rel values? Why an <img> element? Quite simply, because Marc Andreessen shipped one, and shipping code wins."
http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html http://diveintohtml5.info/past.html
- astrodust 14y agoI think a large number of these problems came about because instead of issuing an RFC for proposed solutions, they just did it. You had a number of renegade developers focused on shipping instead of developing consensus. Given the scale of the project at the time, which had a very small user base, maybe this was a reasonable approach. It's just that as the project grew in scope, the process never seemed to change until it became what is the W3C in all of its absurdist glory. The IETF seems intimately familiar with the technical problems they are solving, but the W3C seems oblivious to even the most superficial implications of their decisions. I honestly doubt that even one person on the W3C committee has designed a modern, high-exposure web site.