[whatwg] <img> element comments
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jul 29 20:07:16 PDT 2008
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 01:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > So I think width and height should not have conformance requirements
> > > tied to pixel dimensions of the references image file. They are
> > > presentational, but they are such a useful presentational
> > > optimization that I think it doesn't make sense to try the get rid
> > > of that presentationalism just to comply with a principle.
> > Is the compromise in the spec today acceptable?
> 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.
It solves the problem of authors not being informed when they give the
wrong dimensions by mistake and end up screwing up the ratio.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg