W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: comments on Working Draft of mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 00:23:37 +0100
Message-ID: <C8FFD98530207F40BD8D2CAD608B50B43BC582@mtldsvr01.DotMobi.local>
To: "Nir Dagan" <nir@nirdagan.com>
Cc: <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-bpwg-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sean Owen
> Sent: 22 June 2007 22:51
> To: Nir Dagan
> Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on Working Draft of mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0
> 
> > Comment:
> > What about specifying the width and height of images with intristic
> pixel
> > size?
> 
> Good point, since we also specify that you should include these sizes
> in pixels on img tags, which looks contradictory. I think the
> reasoning here is that it's desirable to not depend on a particular
> screen size, but, images are going to have a size in pixels no matter
> what. Go ahead and state this to help the browser.
> 
> 

To add to what Sean says above, the idea is specifically to require the
specification of image size using the width and height attributes of the
img tag and not to specify the width and height in pixels in CSS. Again,
as Sean says this does appear at first glance to be contradictory but
the thinking behind specifying it in markup is to maximise the chances
of the browser being able to lay out once and only once.

Fwiw we did consider this a number of times before and the text is as it
is because the group decided that on balance this is the preferable
approach. This does deserve further consideration by the group and we
will respond formally with the results of those deliberations. Thanks
again for your input.

Jo
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 23:23:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC