[whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jul 29 19:45:20 PDT 2008
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> 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 styles.
> 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.
I buy this for pixels. I don't buy it for percentages. The arguments don't
apply to those. If you're using percentages, then the values aren't
dependent on the image, and you should do it in the medium-specific style
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg