[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