Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-24 Thread jack fredricks
> Just for clarification, since most of the replies have been taken out of
> context,  it is the positioning information within the asterisks that I
> was suggesting the author handle with CSS and move to the CSS file. The
> comment "move to the CSS file" had nothing to do with dimensions.
> http://www.cregy.net/jewels/images/necklace.jpg"; *align="left"
> vspace=5 hspace=20* alt="picture of a necklace">

I didnt mean to mis-quote, or even quote, you. I just said you made me
think. Your original post, where ever that was, said 'inline styles'.
I just thought I'd take it one step further.

I'll read Uwe's 2 links tonight, then do some testing if I can. Then
post my thoughts.
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-24 Thread Uwe Kaiser

David Laakso schrieb:


On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:01:51 -0400, Uwe Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Two interesting articels:

By Dave Shea
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/05/10/image_attrib/index.php

By Dimitri Glazkov
http://glazkov.com/blog/archive/2005/04/18/430.aspx


regards
Uwe Kaiser
--


jack fredricks schrieb:


david laasko wrote recently;


Move the inline styles for all the images to the CSS file.


  and it made me wonder...
 is it ok to move an image's width and height attribs into a style
sheet? I'm old skool, and I was brainwashed into making sure I always
specify them in the html source (to aid with page render pre image
download).
 thanks
jack


Just for clarification, since most of the replies have been taken out 
of  context,  it is the positioning information within the asterisks 
that I  was suggesting the author handle with CSS and move to the CSS 
file. The  comment "move to the CSS file" had nothing to do with 
dimensions.
http://www.cregy.net/jewels/images/necklace.jpg"; 
*align="left"  vspace=5 hspace=20* alt="picture of a necklace">

David Laakso



I'am sorry, I failed to erase your name and comment.

Uwe Kaiser





__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-24 Thread David Laakso

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:01:51 -0400, Uwe Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Two interesting articels:

By Dave Shea
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/05/10/image_attrib/index.php

By Dimitri Glazkov
http://glazkov.com/blog/archive/2005/04/18/430.aspx


regards
Uwe Kaiser
--


jack fredricks schrieb:


david laasko wrote recently;


Move the inline styles for all the images to the CSS file.

  and it made me wonder...
 is it ok to move an image's width and height attribs into a style
sheet? I'm old skool, and I was brainwashed into making sure I always
specify them in the html source (to aid with page render pre image
download).
 thanks
jack
Just for clarification, since most of the replies have been taken out of  
context,  it is the positioning information within the asterisks that I  
was suggesting the author handle with CSS and move to the CSS file. The  
comment "move to the CSS file" had nothing to do with dimensions.
http://www.cregy.net/jewels/images/necklace.jpg"; *align="left"  
vspace=5 hspace=20* alt="picture of a necklace">

David Laakso

--
http://www.dlaakso.com/

__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-24 Thread Uwe Kaiser



Two interesting articels:

By Dave Shea
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/05/10/image_attrib/index.php

By Dimitri Glazkov
http://glazkov.com/blog/archive/2005/04/18/430.aspx


regards
Uwe Kaiser
--


jack fredricks schrieb:


david laasko wrote recently;



Move the inline styles for all the images to the CSS file.



and it made me wonder...

is it ok to move an image's width and height attribs into a style
sheet? I'm old skool, and I was brainwashed into making sure I always
specify them in the html source (to aid with page render pre image
download).

thanks
jack



__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-23 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Paul Novitski wrote:

At 03:16 PM 5/23/2005, Gunlaug_Sørtun wrote:



Filling stylesheets with a lot of different image-dimensions rarely
 ever makes good sense.



My experience and conclusions are just the opposite:  I like keeping
 image dimensions in the stylesheet along with all of the other 
dimensions of objects on the page, and I find that the stylesheet 
downloads before the images so things don't jump about.


Yes, there are different opinions and experiences around:

...a few (over 50) comments -- all over the place.

The process of recognizing image-dimensions during download isn't
uniform across browser-land, and connection speed and time-out factors
are making it somewhat of a guesswork at times.
I often see images that looks distorted in (wouldn't you know) Internet
Explorer, on my 50Kb call-up connection. My own pages are no exception,
so I'm no stranger to these problems.

It also matters a lot whether an image's own dimensions are defined
(1:1), or some adjustments (scaling) are supposed to take place.
Browsers usually present images the same at the end if there's no
scaling involved, even if no dimensions are defined anywhere. If, in
rare cases, there are distortions, then IE is involved.

The download time is critical if IE is to scale properly. Proportional
scaling where only one dimension can be predefined, is a weak point in
IE. Even em and pixel-defined height/width image-dimensions may end up
being distorted in IE because of time-out, when dimensions are defined
anywhere but as html-attributes and/or inline styles.

Most non-MSIE browsers are cured in their latest versions, but MSIE6 and
slow connections is still a known combination on the web.
Defining dimensions for non-scaling images in external stylesheets is a
waste IMO, and defining scaling images in external stylesheets is a
gamble. I don't like waste and I'm not a gambler, so I'm fine-tuning my
own preferences.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-23 Thread Paul Novitski



jack fredricks wrote:
is it ok to move an image's width and height attribs into a style sheet? 
I'm old skool, and I was brainwashed into making sure I always
 specify them in the html source (to aid with page render pre image 
download).


At 03:16 PM 5/23/2005, Gunlaug_Sørtun wrote:

I think the old school method is still the most efficient one. Images
are one of the few/only elements I often use html width/height
attributes on, and/or write inline styles for. Makes pages less jumpy on
slow connections in "some" browsers, and ease maintenance.

Filling stylesheets with a lot of different image-dimensions rarely ever
makes good sense.



My experience and conclusions are just the opposite:  I like keeping image 
dimensions in the stylesheet along with all of the other dimensions of 
objects on the page, and I find that the stylesheet downloads before the 
images so things don't jump about.


The only dimensions that the W3C compells me to keep in html are the rows & 
cols of a textarea.  I comply, using reasonable dimensions that will work 
if the page is viewed in plain text, but then I redefine those dimensions 
more precisely in CSS.


Regards,
Paul


__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/


Re: [css-d] Images vs inline styles vs width/height

2005-05-23 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

jack fredricks wrote:
is it ok to move an image's width and height attribs into a style 
sheet? I'm old skool, and I was brainwashed into making sure I always
 specify them in the html source (to aid with page render pre image 
download).


I think the old school method is still the most efficient one. Images
are one of the few/only elements I often use html width/height
attributes on, and/or write inline styles for. Makes pages less jumpy on
slow connections in "some" browsers, and ease maintenance.

Filling stylesheets with a lot of different image-dimensions rarely ever
makes good sense.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
__
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/