On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:50 PM, David Bruant <bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr> wrote: > => However, for this point, I am confused. It's true that currently, > <img> elements are not intended to have a content, but ASCII art, as > images, is probably the best (if not only ?) reason to allow text > content in img elements, thus naturally allowing the alt attribute which > doesn't exist in the "second-closest" semantic element.
It's impossible at this point to make <img> elements take contents. They're void elements in every single browser in existence. ~TJ
