Re: Netscape's SPACER

David Perrell (davidp@earthlink.net)
Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:42:09 -0700


Message-ID: <01BB73EE.35399F00@pool020.maxa.agoura.ca.us.dynip.earthlink.net>
From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Netscape's SPACER
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 14:42:09 -0700

Holger Struppek wrote:

> You can use SPACER in three different ways...

Yes. So? I questioned the complexity of the attributes, not the tag. =
Compare your examples with equivalent examples using only HEIGHT and =
WIDTH attributes:

a1)  <SPACER TYPE=3DHORIZONTAL SIZE=3Dwidth>

a2)  <SPACER WIDTH=3Dwidth>


b1)  <SPACER TYPE=3DVERTICAL SIZE=3Dheight>

b2)  <BR><SPACER HEIGHT=3Dheight>


c1)  <SPACER TYPE=3DBLOCK WIDTH=3Dwidth HEIGHT=3Dheight =
ALIGN=3Dalignment>

c2)  <SPACER WIDTH=3Dwidth HEIGHT=3Dheight ALIGN=3Dalignment>


In case b2 a <BR> is required, but the pair of tags is still shorter.

> Actually I like the idea of this tag...

I didn't question the idea of the tag. I asked for a logical reason for =
the seemingly unecessary complexity, and so far no one has given me one. =
As far as I can see, the tag would make more sense as a block element, =
period, and I can't understand why anyone would muck it up, except, =
perhaps, to obfuscate the fact that this is simply the IMG tag without =
an image.

regards, David