W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

Re: [more about IMG attributes for size]

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 16:45:29 EST
Message-Id: <9412162216.AA01272@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Regarding new attributes for the IMG tag, to specify width and height:

Keep in mind that the person/program that creates the IMG reference may
not actually have an image in hand -- it may be on another server.
That's one problem with the proposals to have a server bundle images
along with the base document:  the server may not actually have them.

It's also a problem for whoever creates the base document:  they may
not know its size, so they can't edit the IMG tag.  Oh, they could
peek, but since the image is elsewhere, the owner of the image could
change what the image URL refers to, and then the information in the
IMG tag would be wrong.  (No flames about URNs, please!)

I'm nervous about solutions that would require the server to scan
documents (even if they cache the result) to locate IMG requests.  On
the other hand, if the image information were part of the server's
database (using the term loosely), the whole affair would "fail-soft".
For example, with the scheme Eric Sink described, if a client didn't
get response headers that describe the images in the base document, it
would simply make a best effort to render the page.  But if the server
helped the client by providing the correct (would be nice!) size
information, the client could do a nice rendering job as it receives
the base document.

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 16 December 1994 14:19:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:09 EDT