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 
http://www.w3j.com/5/letter1.html
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
http://www.w3j.com/5/s3.musciano.html

> 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
http://www.webreference.com/dev/html4nsie/objects.html

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
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#h-13.2
(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
<URL:http://search.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=354164719&search=thread&
threaded=1&CONTEXT=895642704.1138819145&
HIT_CONTEXT=895642678.1140260898&hitnum=0>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:36 GMT