- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:12:15 -0500
Michel Fortin wrote: > Except that, contrary to bgcolor, the height and width attributes can > help solve a real problem: page jiggling while the images loads. It's > somewhat like the type="image/jpg" attribute you can set for links: > it gives advance information on what the external content is supposed > to be. So does CSS, as you point out below. > In this case, height and width are inherent properties of the > document if we consider the linked image as part of the document, > much alike the type="" attribute on a link. I'm not sure what you mean. The |type| attribute describes the MIME type. Even if you were to deliberately manipulate this value to some end, I don't see how you could do so in a way that alters the presentation of the document like |height| and |width| do, with the one exception being that you can prevent a style sheet from loading by intentionally giving the wrong |type| value. Of course, there's no obvious motive for providing a <link> that does nothing, is there? > Sure, we could use > style="width: 32; height: 32" instead of width="32" height="32", but > most of the time the size of an image isn't a matter of style, it's a > matter of what the image is. The |width| and |height| attributes don't specify the dimensions of the source image. They specify the size of the image in the document. That's presentational, in my book. Arguing that those attributes are properties of the image within the document amounts to a free pass for all presentational markup. The <font>, <center>, <s> and <u> elements communicate a property of the text, not the presentation. I don't buy it. Without the attributes actually describing a property of the source image (which is redundant), the |height| and |width| have no semantic meaning. Convenient as they are, they're styling as markup.
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 19:12:15 UTC