W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 1998

Re: Image Button Height/Width?

From: Markku Savela <msa@anise.tte.vtt.fi>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 16:26:04 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <199812021426.QAA31422@anise.tte.vtt.fi>
To: www-html@w3.org
> We do? There are good reasons _against_ using dimensions for regular
> images especially if they are small. See
> http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/html/alt.html

Above refers

	Especially for small images, such as navigational icons and
	spacers, it is best to omit the WIDTH and HEIGHT
	attributes. The reason is that many graphic browsers reserve
	space according to them even when images are off; and this
	implies that the ALT texts don't fit.

In my view, those brosers are broken: if images are off, the ALT text
should be inserted into the text flow as is (like Lynx does), and size
ignored.

It's very sad that both major browser are broken in this respect(and
in many others too).

And now that I opened my gripes, I guess I may say that HTML is also
going into wrong direction :-). An example of a thing I don't
like/understand:

WHY do we really need "SPAN" and "DIV"? I would think a single SPAN
that could enclose anything, but would not introduce any extra
semantics (such as block level as DIV does).

A similar reasoning goes for "FORM". Why an earth it has to
be "BLOCK LEVEL"? It should just be a plain grouping thing, without
any representational semantics associated.

(And if you say you cannot describe such a simple thing with SGML DTD,
then there is deficiency in SGML DTD language, and that too is
broken...:-)

Internet is BROKEN!
-- 
Markku Savela (msa@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi), Technical Research Centre of Finland
Multimedia Systems, P.O.Box 1203,FIN-02044 VTT,http://www.vtt.fi/tte/staff/msa/
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 1998 09:26:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:38 GMT