Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:49:40 +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In 1998 I used a version of iBrowse for the Amiga that treated <img>
width= and height= in the way Ian proposed -- as preliminary advice on
the dimensions of the image, reflowing if the actual dimensions turned
out to be different.
I thought the proposal was that only that (setting height and width to
the intrinsic size of the image) would be conforming, but that rendering
would still be the same.
That's the impression I had. But it seems like a really pointless thing
to specify; there will never be a browser released that can both render
images and does not render them at the with and height (or, in the case
where the dimensions are larger than the screen size, at least aspect
ratio) suggested by the width and height attributes. Given their
frequency of use (far more than e.g. alt[1]) and the fact that the
values will be different on a per-image basis, it is clear that the only
sensible replacement is the-mother-of-all-presentational-attributes
"style". So it's not even clear that removing or restricting these
attributes would be a significant win for semantic purity: in most cases
authors would just achieve the same effect with the more complex syntax
of the style attribute.
[1] http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/element-img.html
--
"The universe doesn't care what you believe. The wonderful thing about
science is that it doesn't ask for your faith, it just asks for your
eyes" --- http://xkcd.com/c154.html
