On: What is happening in the Arctic is now beyond word...

[lwansbrough]

Actually, it does. Try it. (To be clear, it was implemented because of the frequency in which developers mistakenly use <image> instead of <img>)

[zeusk → lwansbrough]

Apparently not in HTML5, although major browsers retained it for the purpose you mentioned and back-compat.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11928566/img-vs-image-ta...

[userbinator → zeusk]

Interesting comment there:

I discovered, the hard way, that the Android Gmail client, using naked HTML (with a default naked DTD specification), does exhibit this problem. It only responds to <img /> [i.e., not <image />]. gmail.com is fine with <image />, but not the Android gmail client.

Looks like a fingerprinting opportunity to me.

[nostrademons → zeusk]

It's in HTML5 as well, but is converted at tokenization time to <img> and a parse error is recorded.

https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110113/tokenization.ht...

(Search for "image")

[geuis → lwansbrough]

No it doesn’t. Html has img and picture tags. https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/semantics-embedded-content.html...

[lwansbrough → geuis]

It does indeed have <image> tags as part of the spec, in order to account for about 0.2% of websites per a study done in December 2005. See this comment for the link in the spec: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16462230