W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2005

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:14:18 +0300
To: "www-style.w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Message-ID: <op.ss6hd40r8nstxa@lomarnona>

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:08:03 +0300, Laurens Holst  
<lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:

I read the faq, thanks.

About the reflows, I have to repeat my question that doesn't get answered  
here. Images cause reflows all the time, and specs say giving image sizes  
is not necessary. How is does this bode with the 'no reflow' motto?

Any network knowledge will lead us to the conclusion that images will have  
to be loaded a little later than the actual point its tag occurs in the  
document. So then, why isn't image size properties not obligatory? Because  
unless the servers start adopting an auto size property for tags, which is  
very unlikely as each page would have to be run by a fully fledged html  
parser, this is not always practical, and the size of the image may  
interfere with its alt property display. I don't know if there is a rule  
such as "do not use embedded image size" when the image size is given in a  
tag yet the user turns off images.

Solutions that aren't:
1-) Make embedded size info an obligation in images while making sure  
turning images off overrides the embedded size info:
	Not very practical, this would make adding images to a document a hassle,  
and not always I can know how much the image size will be.
2-) UA waits until that specific images size info is retrieved from the  
image file itself to avoid reflow.
	Internet's dynamic nature may result in some images causing long halts in  
rendering.
3-) Remove images from the specs as they cause a reflow.
	No, they will be here to stay.

Reality:
1-) There's almost always a reflow, and there will be, in a www where  
there are images. We'll just get used to it.

Anybody would like to clarify?

Emrah BASKAYA
p.s. I present my apologies publicly for an earlier mail that I tried to  
tell the opposite of what I had actually written. This mailing list was  
not the place for it. It won't ever happen again, it created confusions.



>
> With the recent discussions in mind, and the doubts some people have  
> about why things were done a certain way in CSS, I have attempted to  
> create a FAQ:
>
> http://www.grauw.nl/articles/css-faq.php
>
> Hopefully this will give some insight in why things are the way they are  
> in CSS.
>
> It should also give people a place to point to when they have to explain  
> something that has already been explained before.
>
> I aim to keep it updated, adding new items as I see questions asked and  
> answered, and links to the relevant discussion threads and information.
>
> If there are any more questions you think are suitable for answering in  
> this document, I will gladly hear them.
>
>
> ~Grauw
>



-- 
Emrah BASKAYA
www.hesido.com
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2005 10:14:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:38 GMT