

Origin of the IMG tag - theyoungceo
http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.html

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

[http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-
talk.1993q1/0184.ht...](http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-
talk.1993q1/0184.html)

~~~
icky
from datetime import TimeMachine

------
davidw
Worse is better:

[http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-
talk.1993q1/0257.ht...](http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-
talk.1993q1/0257.html)

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

~~~
dag
Speaking of that, anyone heard from Arc recently?

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

------
snorkel
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.

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

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

------
pius
So old school, I love it.

