Re: Netscape Plug-ins and <OBJECT>

At 2:33p +0300 09/19/97, Jukka Korpela wrote:
 >
 > >   <object data=foo width=100 height=60>
 > >    a picture of foo
 > >   </object>
 > >
 > > This specifies the with and height for the image. The image
 > > will be scaled if necessary to this size.
 >
 > Will it? The HTML 4.0 draft says, at
 > http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970708/struct/includes.html#visual
 > that the (deprecated) width and height attributes "give user agents an
 > idea of the size of an image or object so that they may reserve space
 > for it". It also says that "user agents may scale objects and images to
 > match these values if appropriate". This is confusing. (For example,
 > assume that I use an image on my page, using the width and height
 > attributes for the purpose of speeding things up, which is _the_ purpose
 > according to HTML 3.2 and still seems to be the _primary_ purpose
 > according to the HTML 4.0 draft.

I get MAJORLY PISSED OFF when image tags do not contain height= and width=
attributes. Why? Because the placeholders are not the size of the images,
so as each image appears, the text below and/or to the side of it gets
thrown from its previous position. Makes it DAMN hard to read the page.
If it weren't for text-only browsers, I would want height and width to
become *required* attributes...

 > Now suppose the owner of the image
 > replaces it with a new version with slightly different dimension.
 > Some browsers would use the actual dimensions of the image whereas some
 > others would scale it, perhaps distorting the image badly if the
 > width:height proportions change.)

The author does have some responsibilities, you know. They often shirk
them, but the responsibility remains with the author.

__________________________________________________________________________
  Walter Ian Kaye <boo_at_best*com>    Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML
 http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter

Received on Friday, 19 September 1997 16:19:58 UTC