[whatwg] <img> element comments
giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl
Wed Jul 30 01:29:35 PDT 2008
The element you are describing is effectively a progress bar control. It is
still not present in HTML; however, it can be emulated using an OUTPUT
control with layout or with invisible text and a custom background:
<SPAN STYLE="COLOR: RED; BACKGROUND: RED; BORDER: THIN SOLID BLACK"
Alternatively, if you scorn at the number of asterisks, you can use <INPUT
TYPE=TEXT SIZE=13 DISABLED>. This has the disadvantage of being irrelevant
to screen readers.
From: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Ian Hickson
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:08 AM
To: Matthew Paul Thomas
Subject: Re: [whatwg] <img> element comments
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.
> 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
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?
More information about the whatwg