[whatwg] <img> element comments

Ian Hickson 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 mailing list