[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Images embedded in XML
- From: Benjamin Franz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> If this works this well, why does HTML not
> embed images in the HTML page?
You can - it isn't a limitation of HTML. URI type 'data:' from RFC2397
<URL:http://www.landfield.com/rfcs/rfc2397.html>. Netscape has supported
it for a long time - but MSIE didn't last time I checked (a few years
Try it in Netscape and it will work. Try it in MSIE, and it probably will
not. Since MSIE has 86%+ of the market, designers won't use it at all.
That is the same reason designers don't use the 'OBJECT' tag, either (now
*that* was a real crime - MSIE almost certainly had to have
*intentionally* broken it. The tag was designed for transparent backward
compatibility, but MSIE throws major hissy fits over it and made it
impossible to deploy for *anything* except ActiveX.) The real question
becomes "Why doesn't MS want to support RFC2397?".
> Would one want to lose the XML payload if the image does
> not make it, the connection drops, etc.?
> As long as I can remember, embedding binary
> in markup has been discouraged.
> When would putting the binary in the XML
> be a good idea?
When you need to distribute a self-contained system.
"Real programmers can write assembly code in any language."
-- Larry Wall