At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Paul Sundling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I originally thought it said <html:image> instead of <html:img> . I noticed that <html:image> does not have height and width. When I look at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for <input type="image"..., but from testing I know that height and width work for that tag in both mozilla and IE. Would it be worth adding height and width to the <html:image> tag?
Just as a matter of note, height and width should work with Netscape 4+ & IE 4+
for <input type="image">. Looks like your pocket reference skimped on the
details :)
In terms of adding the two attributes to the <html:image> tag, I personally
think it would make a useful addition...
"height" and "width" are not valid attributes of the "input" tag: see http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.4
Joe
I can't say I'm surprised to hear that since it wasn't in my little book. At the same time, if a given attribute is not part of the official W3C HTML spec, does that mean we shouldn't support the feature if there is browser support for it? This is more a philosophical issue on wether you're supporting the HTML standard, or the browser implementations of the standard. Is there a project stance on that?
Two main browsers since version 4 is pretty good support. If it's supported even in Safari and Opera or other, less common browsers, then I would say that's wide enough browser support to definitely consider. Of course, that's irrelevant if we're coding to spec and not implementation.
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]