- From: Andreyka Lechev <leechy@leechy.ru>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:48:37 +0300
On 07.11.2006, at 19:49, Shadow2531 wrote: > On 11/7/06, Anne van Kesteren <fora at annevankesteren.nl> wrote: > >> 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. > > [encouraged if you need to resize the image - alt] > <img src="276x110.png" style="width: 50%; height: 50%;" width="276" > height="110" alt="fallback text" title="description"> > > If that's correct, doing things the proposed, encouraged, conforming > way seems fine as far as UAs that support css are concerned. Don't forget that percentage values are relative values. And in current browser implementations, setting those values via CSS-rules or using width- and height-attributes are leading to different results! It's due to different parents to calculate actual (pixel) values from! CSS values are relative to the the parent element in HTML tree: <div style="width: 100px; height: 100px;"> <img src="276x110.png" style="width: 50%; height: 50%;"> </div> => displays image 50x50px. Attributes values are relative to the actual size of the image: <img src="276x110.png" width="50%" height="50%"> => displays image 138x55px. That may be very useful in many cases, so as a HTML-coder, I don't think anybody should change that behavior without proposing something to replace it. -- Andreyka Lechev leechy at leechy.ru
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 10:48:37 UTC