Re: SVG 2 review request

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Patrick H. Lauke
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13/08/2016 05:50, Doug Schepers wrote:
>> I'd like to hear a more concrete explanation of why interactivity in
>> <img> must be disallowed.
>
>
> Maybe not a deeply technical explanation, but: I would argue that when
> talking about an "image", people are thinking about something visual,
> presentational, non-interactive (though possibly animated). The <img>
> element is the HTML representation of this concept. In fact, the spec (for
> convenience, just going to point to
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element) says
>
> "[...] a non-interactive, optionally animated, image resource that is
> neither paged nor scripted."
>
> <img> is exposed to AT with a role of image, and again this is understood
> (by users and AT) to be something non-interactive.
>
> *IF* you wanted to add something interactive inside an <img>, you'd need to
> signal this with at least the addition of a different role="..." attribute
> (and then change user agent behavior, which would assume <img> is
> non-interactive, so presumably doesn't cater for focusability etc). But this
> still feels like a conceptual stretch...

Yup! And it's a completely *unnecessary* stretch, because HTML
*already* has elements that indicate interactive embedding of
resources: <iframe> and <object>!  There's zero need to fiddle with
<img>'s semantics.

~TJ