Should images have a "name" attribute?

I notice Dreamweaver creates a name attribute automatically with the same value as id, which I wouldn't have thought to do. I read t开发者_如何转开发his question asking the difference between name and id attributes in HTML, but what about where it applies to images?

---

Expando attributes won't hurt anything in any modern browser. It was officially supported in HTML 4.01, but removed in Strict XHTML:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

Regardless, it is pretty much useless for anything. Dreamweaver has included it for as long as I can remember.

A validator will complain (legitimately so) if you add an unsupported attribute to a tag.

---

name is an attribute included for scripting backwards compatibility and should be of no use today.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG

name = cdata [CI]
This attribute names the element so that it may be referred to from style sheets or scripts. Note: This attribute has been included for backwards compatibility. Applications should use the id attribute to identify elements.

---

Name is pretty much only useful for forms. You can use it as a way to add metadata to images, but there are more standard ways to do that these days.

---

ID attribute should be used for now.

The NAME attribute, added to IMG in HTML 4.01, specifies a name for referring to the image from a client-side script. The ID attribute provides the same functionality, but old browsers such as Netscape 4.x only support the NAME attribute.

Source: http://htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/special/img.html