[whatwg] <img> element comments

Kristof Zelechovski 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 >
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.

-----Original Message-----
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. 
> <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?

More information about the whatwg mailing list