The reason it has long been recommended to include "width" and "height" attributes in image elements is to assist the browser in rendering the page. Once upon a time browsers would, upon encountering an image of unknown size, stop rendering until the image had been downloaded and the size thus determined. (Table rendering was subject to similar waits.)
Given that motivation putting the attributes in an external CSS file is only marginally more useful than leaving them out entirely, since the browser still has to go retrieve something external to the page before it knows how big the image is. Modern browsers are quite adept at shuffling things around on the page after the initial rendering, so my vote would be to leave off the width and height specifications entirely. I mean, if you're making a fixed-size layout whose elements are generally specified in pixels, obviously you'd want to do so for the images, too, but I wouldn't recommend adding width and height specifications to images just because they're images. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
