Re: Image Button Height/Width?

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Markku Savela wrote:
> I would think a single SPAN that could enclose anything, but would
> not introduce any extra semantics.

It can introduce LANG semantics and TITLE semantics, as well as
allowing non semantical markup for stylistic and scripting issues.


> A similar reasoning goes for "FORM". Why an earth it has to be
> "BLOCK LEVEL"? 

Historical reasons, I believe.


> 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,

It can: witness the INS and DEL elements.


>> http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/html/alt.html
>: 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.

I must say that I agree 100% with that.

-- 
Ian Hickson

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 1998 09:48:47 UTC