<image> tag?

[Frank Wein]

Hi,
today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
<image> tag, its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag
(IMDB.com uses it for example). I did not find anything in the web so
far where this tag comes from (ok it's also a bit difficult to search
for this, since search engines all seem to ignore < or >), someone knows
more about this tag? I found some old reference that this tag at least
already existed in 1998 or 1999, but i did not find it in the HTML 4.0
nor 3.0 nor 2.0 spec from the W3C (took a quick look at those specs).
Was this maybe introduced during the old browser wars days?

Greetings
Frank

[Mark Parnell]

In our last episode, Frank Wein <mc***************@gmx.de> pronounced to
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
<image> tag,
Never heard of it. Can't find any reference to it either.
its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag
So what's the point?
Was this maybe introduced during the old browser wars days?

Possibly. It's certainly of no use to anyone, especially if it is
exactly the same as img.

--
Mark Parnell
http://clarkecomputers.com.au

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Frank Wein wrote:

today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
<image> tag, its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag
It's an old feature:
"Thought you might like to know: All the browsers surveyed also support
another form of this element (which is not a part of ANY HTML standard.)
The string "IMAGE" can replace "IMG". Internet Explorer supports this
since version 1.0, Mosaic since at least 2.1, and Netscape since version
1.1."
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/ht...es/i/image.htm

Presumably some authors wrote <image> because that's how they remembered
the tag from some lessons or tutorials, or browser programmers just
thought that people _might_ write so.
(IMDB.com uses it for example).

That's bad practice: it gains nothing. And it even wastes two
characters. :-)

Browser vendors dare not drop support to it, since it just might be used
somewhere, and it really does not cost to supportit. But who knows -
after all, the expertlore about this tag may fade away, and then...

[Frank Wein]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Frank Wein wrote:

today i found out some browsers (at least Mozilla and IE) support the
<image> tag, its usage seems to be the same as for the <img> tag

It's an old feature:
"Thought you might like to know: All the browsers surveyed also support
another form of this element (which is not a part of ANY HTML standard.)
The string "IMAGE" can replace "IMG". Internet Explorer supports this
since version 1.0, Mosaic since at least 2.1, and Netscape since version
1.1."
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/ht...es/i/image.htm

Presumably some authors wrote <image> because that's how they remembered
the tag from some lessons or tutorials, or browser programmers just
thought that people _might_ write so.

Ok, thanks for the info :).

Frank