I just thought that I cannot find any reason (security? what kind of? may be uselessness?) you can include any image into your HTML page (from any foreign website and the owner of it can delete/alter it later) with a simple <img src=...> tag while plain text embedding is a very tricky task.<p>The only solution of embedding text into HTML page on client side I know is <script src=...> with document.write inside.<p>Do you know why text embedding wasn't included into HTML standard with a simple tag?
> Do you know why text embedding wasn't included into HTML standard with a simple tag?<p>It probably occurred to people that copying the text would be easier. Also consider: There's no standard HTML way to put an image inside an image. And there's no standard HTML way to put text inside text. That seems reasonably symmetrical.<p>Also, directly linking to content from other sites (as opposed to providing links to other pages) is increasingly looked on as on the spectrum between undesirable and a copyright violation.<p>Links to other pages have always been acceptable. Displaying images on your own pages that are hosted elsewhere is pretty much unacceptable. Also, from a practical standpoint, you're better off copying the image -- assuming you have the right. I think the same reasoning should apply to text.