[whatwg] <img> element comments
Matthew Paul Thomas
mpt at myrealbox.com
Sun Oct 14 03:32:20 PDT 2007
On Oct 14, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> ...
> I don't think "If both attributes are specified, then the ratio of the
> specified width to the specified height must be the same as the ratio
> of the logical width to the logical height in the image file." solves
> any real problem given what browsers already have to implement, so I'd
> remove that sentence.
> ...
As a real-world example, Launchpad currently stretches the width of
static images to produce simple bar charts of how much particular
software packages have been localized.
<https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu>
We have to specify both width= and height= for the images, because
specifying width= alone causes w3m to stretch the images vertically to
maintain their aspect ratio. Meanwhile, elsewhere we're using <canvas>,
so we should really be declaring our pages to be HTML 5 site-wide.
The sentence Henri quoted would require us to choose between
server-side generation of every chart image, incompatibility with w3m,
or non-conformance with any HTML specification. I know w3m isn't
exactly a major browser, but I don't see any good reason for having to
make that choice.
Cheers
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list