> If it was JPG or PNG, you could not select the text,
Maybe not select the text, but images has always had “alt” and “title” attributes.
> embed links,
Even HTML 2 (RFC 1866¹ from 1995) had image maps, and HTML3.2 implemented client-side image maps (RFC 1980²).
> or reuse parts of the page.
It’s an image, anyone can just screenshot it or download the image file, and then crop it.
> And nobody could copy the source code to make the web a better place.
How is this hypothetical page using Javascript and images better, in this aspect, than an SVG-based one?
The huge drawback which this kind of hypothetical image page has, compared to a page made with SVG, is that pixel-based images do not scale well with increasing resolutions.
By reuse parts of the page, I meant more that on a website where each page has the same 20 images, they don't have to be loaded by the browser after the first page because they're cached.
I don't think I'll be able to convince you that our idea has much merit, but I really do appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts.
Maybe not select the text, but images has always had “alt” and “title” attributes.
> embed links,
Even HTML 2 (RFC 1866¹ from 1995) had image maps, and HTML3.2 implemented client-side image maps (RFC 1980²).
> or reuse parts of the page.
It’s an image, anyone can just screenshot it or download the image file, and then crop it.
> And nobody could copy the source code to make the web a better place.
How is this hypothetical page using Javascript and images better, in this aspect, than an SVG-based one?
The huge drawback which this kind of hypothetical image page has, compared to a page made with SVG, is that pixel-based images do not scale well with increasing resolutions.
1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1866.html#section-7.6
2. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1980