W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2007

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:32:20 +1300
Message-ID: <cf95ea12e3c62baaac30e5fadff58cb9@myrealbox.com>
On Oct 14, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> ...
> I don't think "If both attributes are specified, then the ratio of the 
> specified width to the specified height must be the same as the ratio 
> of the logical width to the logical height in the image file." solves 
> any real problem given what browsers already have to implement, so I'd 
> remove that sentence.
> ...

As a real-world example, Launchpad currently stretches the width of 
static images to produce simple bar charts of how much particular 
software packages have been localized.
<https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu>

We have to specify both width= and height= for the images, because 
specifying width= alone causes w3m to stretch the images vertically to 
maintain their aspect ratio. Meanwhile, elsewhere we're using <canvas>, 
so we should really be declaring our pages to be HTML 5 site-wide.

The sentence Henri quoted would require us to choose between 
server-side generation of every chart image, incompatibility with w3m, 
or non-conformance with any HTML specification. I know w3m isn't 
exactly a major browser, but I don't see any good reason for having to 
make that choice.

Cheers
-- 
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 03:32:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:37 UTC