<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Regarding: img dimensions to be correct?<br>
<pre wrap="">Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We struggled with this for the WRI requirements[*]. We seem to be settling on
requiring a width and height to be specified in HTML, because as nice as CSS
is, Web pages must not be CSS-dependant. Even if the author means to provide
CSS, it might not be available (network/server error; saving and local
viewing of the HTML file; User CSS overrides) (A followup requirement would
probably have to be that when CSS is available, and specifies IMG size in px,
it must be the same as the size specified in the HTML.)
The only other sensible option would be to completely disallow width and
height in HTML. But that will result in 'jumpy rendering' because browsers
can't allocate the proper rendering space until the image's dimensions are
known.
[*] <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://webrepair.org/02strategy/02certification/01requirements.php"><http://webrepair.org/02strategy/02certification/01requirements.php></a> Btw,
this is our initial take. We very much welcome community feedback.</pre>
</blockquote>
I don't really think this is a good idea IMHO.<br>
<br>
Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the CSS for a
web page is I'm guessing, pretty slim.<br>
The chance of someone not being able to access this CSS, <b>and</b>
actually noticing or caring that the images aren't rendered correctly
(if in fact they aren't), is very very slim. So I don't think it's
really worth throwing away the benefits of CSS just for a very rare
occasion like this that would probably not be of benefit to anyone
anyway.<br>
<br>
Secondly, when scaling images you would normally just set the height,
not the width. This ensures that the images proportions are kept
intact, as specifying a width distorts the image.<br>
<br>
This being said I hope no one makes it a requirement to specify just
the in-line height, as this would still create problems. For example if
you had an images height set within the html to 100% of the parent
elements height, and there was no CSS available to specify the parents
height (for example a div), the user agent would probably just stretch
the image to the full height of the screen (FF doesn't do this, but IE
and Opera do), therefore causing more problems than if you had just
left all the styling in the CSS to begin with. So the long and the
short of it IMO is to just use CSS and rely on the user-agent to show
the page the best it can in the absence of CSS.<br>
<br>
regards,<br>
<br>
-- Dean Edridge<br>
</body>
</html>