[whatwg] <img> element comments
Andreyka Lechev
leechy at leechy.ru
Tue Nov 7 10:48:37 PST 2006
On 07.11.2006, at 19:49, Shadow2531 wrote:
> On 11/7/06, Anne van Kesteren <fora at annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
>
>> I thought the proposal was that only that (setting height and
>> width to the
>> intrinsic size of the image) would be conforming, but that
>> rendering would
>> still be the same.
>
> [encouraged if you need to resize the image - alt]
> <img src="276x110.png" style="width: 50%; height: 50%;" width="276"
> height="110" alt="fallback text" title="description">
>
> If that's correct, doing things the proposed, encouraged, conforming
> way seems fine as far as UAs that support css are concerned.
Don't forget that percentage values are relative values. And in
current browser implementations, setting those values via CSS-rules
or using width- and height-attributes are leading to different
results! It's due to different parents to calculate actual (pixel)
values from!
CSS values are relative to the the parent element in HTML tree:
<div style="width: 100px; height: 100px;">
<img src="276x110.png" style="width: 50%; height: 50%;">
</div>
=> displays image 50x50px.
Attributes values are relative to the actual size of the image:
<img src="276x110.png" width="50%" height="50%">
=> displays image 138x55px.
That may be very useful in many cases, so as a HTML-coder, I don't
think anybody should change that behavior without proposing something
to replace it.
--
Andreyka Lechev
leechy at leechy.ru
More information about the whatwg
mailing list