W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2006

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:38:37 +0100
Message-ID: <op.tifz6nv2aw9dld@id-c0020>
Some points:

* I think the section on the <img> element should also define 'new  
Image([width [, height]])' which effectively returns an HTMLImageElement  
object in current browsers.

* It should probably mention 'img.src = foo' (that loading directly  
starts). I thought that 'img.setAttribute("src", foo)' even did different  
things in browsers (when the element is not yet inserted into the  
document) so reflect might not be accurate.

* I would also suggest to put "If the src attribute is omitted, there is  
no alternative image representation." after the last statement on the alt  
attribute.

* Regarding the alt attribute, wouldn't it make sense to just allow it to  
be omitted? In terms of meaning it seems the same. On the other hand, it  
probably shows the difference between people who thought of the  
alternative representation and people that haven't.

* I think it would also make sense to show some more examples for the alt  
attribute. http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html might be too large  
to be included in the specification, but guidelines to that effect would  
be more than welcome.

* The height and width attributes as defined are completely  
presentational. I don't really see any value in keeping them. Now I  
suppose they have to be supported anyway, but so does <body bgcolor="">.

* Perhaps we can allow content for XML documents?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 05:38:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:49 UTC