[whatwg] <img> element comments

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jul 29 20:08:22 PDT 2008

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> 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.

As far as I'm aware, the behaviour you describe for w3m matches what all 
the UAs do.

I'm not sure that this usage of <img> is one that the spec today considers 
valid. Wouldn't <canvas> be the better way to do this?

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