- From: T.J. Crowder <tj@crowdersoftware.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:03:10 +0000
- To: davidms@uwclub.net
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAH65x-wwQpRsZP_Onq3Tjx2emuuZk2uVnOmd9BRd_WGyDUejhQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 20 November 2011 13:55, David Swindlehurst <davidms@uwclub.net> wrote: > Although there is a mass of insignificant discussion in the current > Specification about the "alt" tag, there is no mention of image sizing at > all... Isn't there? http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-map-element.html#attr-dim-width Separately: Do you have a use-case for using percentage values for `width` / `height` on `img` elements? I'm not immediately thinking of one (well, not a good one), but that doesn't mean anything. -- T.J. Crowder Independent Software Engineer tj / crowder software / com www / crowder software / com On 20 November 2011 13:55, David Swindlehurst <davidms@uwclub.net> wrote: > Hi folks: > > The W3C Validator for html5 (as with previous versions) accepts element > widths specified in percentages, through CSS, which enables accurate page > rendering for any size of display. EXCEPT that it refuses to accept > percentages for specifying width for the img tag! For instance > > <div class="?"><img src="image.png" alt="ancient grey-haired awkward > person" width="25%" /></div> > > results in an error - the Validator expects an absolute number (of > pixels!). Fixing image width like this prevents correct rendering of the > page in any size of display different from the writer's original. Although > there is a mass of insignificant discussion in the current Specification > about the "alt" tag, there is no mention of image sizing at all, which > seems to me to be far more important. Does the Spec need revising, or is > the Validator wrong in expecting an absolute number? > > DMS > > >
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 11:04:08 UTC