Origin of the IMG tag(1997.webhistory.org)

36 pointsby theyoungceo19 anni fa9 comments

1997.webhistory.org

http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html

6 comments

knome19 anni fa

Anybody notice Guido van Russum commenting two messages into that chain?

http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0184.ht...

icky19 anni fa

from datetime import TimeMachine

davidw19 anni fa

Worse is better:

http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0257.ht...

paul19 anni fa

_Works_ is better. "Functional now" beats "theoretically great but not quite usable yet".

dag19 anni fa

Speaking of that, anyone heard from Arc recently?

A 'works now' version would be nice, release the 3000 version later.

[deleted]19 anni fa

snorkel19 anni fa

Fascinating reading the entire discussion thread. Andressen proposes a simple tag for embedding images and right away everyone else makes more complicated proposals. Tim Bernes-Lee himself suggests only embedding icons in links. Soon the thread devolves into a discussion on embedding all kinds of media. Think of how boring the web would be if some of the more complicated schemes in that discussion had prevailed over IMG SRC.

jgrahamc19 anni fa

Has it really been 14 years? Boy, time flies.

johnrob19 anni fa

"No closing tag": nice, I wonder how (non-X) html became so unruly ;)

pius19 anni fa

So old school, I love it.