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

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

From: dreamwvr <dreamwvr@dreamwvr.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:45:45 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: <kg9ae@geocities.com>, <www-html@w3.org>
  Now here is a thought how about a DIMENSION= variable
  to contain image parameters be it 21 dimensionally or 3?

At 07:30 PM 5/19/98 -0500, David Norris wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Hickson [mailto:exxieh@bath.ac.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 12:50 PM
>To: David Norris; www-html@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Are IMG height/width deprecated? Why not?
>>David Norris wrote:
>>>and width should be.  They are for specifying what the height and width
>>>are, thus part of the description of the image.  Such as alt, etc.
>>[huge snip of very readable prose]
>>Unfortunately, you're wrong :-)
>>The HTML4 spec changed this,
>You're right, I must not have looked at IMG since the final rec.  I was
>correct a few months ago, though.  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.  I certainly agree that
>they should not be an override.  They are important for describing the image
>to someone that can't see it, for instance.  This is rather odd and
>borderline irresponsible.  A few paragraphs above the IMG element it states
>that all visual formatting attributes for Object and Img have been dropped
>from the DTD, yet they define one a few lines down.  Huh?
>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.  I tend to agree.  IMG is a bit limiting.  OBJECT allows
>for better replacement when images aren't available to the user.
>,David Norris

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 1998 16:42:48 UTC

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