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

RE: Are IMG height/width deprecated? Why not?

From: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 08:43:09 +0300 (EET DST)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980520081340.18485A-100000@beta.hut.fi>
On Tue, 19 May 1998, David Norris wrote:

> Who's idea was this?  All specs up to the
> final, including HTML 3.2, indicate that height and width are the suggested
> dimensions, as in simply a description, not scaled.

You might find part of an answer to this question about history in 
which contains my notes on Chuck Musciano's article about what's
new in HTML 3.2 and his response to my notes. The article itself is at

> I certainly agree that they should not be an override.

This is a difficult question. Maybe I'll come back to it some day
if there will be some activities in developing the HTML language...

> They are important for describing the image
> to someone that can't see it, for instance.

Are they? In which way? Sometimes the dimensions are important to
someone who _could_ see the image and is wondering whether to load
it or not, but then probably the size (in bytes) would be more relevant. 

> If we get right down to it; use of IMG is everything but discouraged in the
> specs.  The specs suggest quite often that use of OBJECT is a better way to
> include an image.

Eh? Which of those statements contains a typo? Really, I'm not sure!
Or do you just mean the specs are somewhat self-contradictory?

> I tend to agree.  IMG is a bit limiting.  OBJECT allows
> for better replacement when images aren't available to the user.

In principle, yes. In practice, current implementations are so
horrible that one can hardly consider using OBJECT for anything real; see

And it isn't even clear that the inclusion of an image using OBJECT
is _equivalent_ to the inclusion of an image using IMG. The specs
rather strongly _suggest_ this in explaining the example at
(I'm especially looking at the words "This inclusion may also be
achieved with the OBJECT element - -", giving the word "This" perhaps
more emphasis than is intended.) But on the other hand, browsers
seem to take different viewpoints; see the thread beginning from

Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 1998 01:43:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:48 UTC