[whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?
hsivonen at iki.fi
Wed Mar 21 02:37:05 PDT 2007
On Mar 3, 2007, at 21:58, Ian Hickson wrote:
> The question isn't whether or not you should have the ability to scale
> images; it's clear that this is desirable. The question is whether it
> makes sense to put this in HTML as opposed to CSS. Why would HTML
> be the
> place to put this?
Because the dimensions vary from image to image, putting the
dimensions in an external style sheet would mean moving the
dimensions even further away from the images they pertain to. Generic
reusable styles make sense in an external sheet. ID selectors
specific to particular image files don't. OTOH, moving the dimensions
from attributes to style='' or <style> within the HTML file is
totally pointless from any *practical* point of view and would make
it harder to implement structural HTML editors that don't tamper with
As for requiring pixel dimensions to be "correct": No, it shouldn't
be required, because for backwards compat the <img> width and height
are in CSS pixels and image dimensions are in real pixels. With
emerging high-res displays it may soon make sense to have bitmaps
whose bitmap pixels are smaller than CSS pixels.
As for allowing percentages: Yes, they should be allowed. Percentages
have to be implemented for backwards compat anyway, so pretending
that they aren't there doesn't have a practical advantage when
(considering the above) the attributes themselves should stay.
> If we put this in HTML, how can we still drop <font>, <table
> border>, <td width>, etc?
Those aren't generally tightly coupled with something like the shape
of a particular image file. (OTOH, the left/right alignment of table
cells *is* often tightly coupled with the cell data, which suggests
that the cell alignment attributes should not be dropped.)
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the whatwg