[whatwg] <img> element comments
elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Sun Nov 5 04:42:35 PST 2006
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Using attributes to describe actual metadata about an image that has
> real practical benefits, for both the author and user, is not
> presentational in my view.
Yes, but that is not what the height and width attributes are. They say
nothing about the image and everything about the size at which the image
> There's even an edge case where specifying incorrect dimensions could
> still be considered semantic. Unfortunately, I can't find the site I'm
> thinking of, but I've seen a site somewhere that created art by using
> small images and stretching them for the pixelation effect. In this
> case, stretching the image is part of the artwork's artistic value and
> meaning, not just it's presentation, and it would lose it all if the
> image were shown at it's actual size.
There are always edge cases. The distinction between semantics and
presentation is a fuzzy one. Nonetheless, I think most of the time
height and width as specified on today's img tags are clearly
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
More information about the whatwg