- From: Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>
- Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:48:57 +0000
Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: >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. Indeed, but then there is the mantra that CSS should be considered 100% optional since the CSS may not be used for various reasons like network trouble. Afaics the question then seems to be; is preventing reflows a serious enough issue to not delegate it to CSS? > 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. I don't believe that using a strict presentational vs semantic model is helpful or even possible, nor do I believe that allowing width & height attributes could create a precedent. The question should be if maintaining these serves a valid useful purpose. -- Spartanicus (email whitelist in use, non list-server mail will not be seen)
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 04:48:57 UTC