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

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 07:42:35 -0500
Message-ID: <454DDC3B.9010001@metalab.unc.edu>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> Using attributes to describe actual metadata about an image that has 
> real practical benefits, for both the author and user, is not 
> presentational in my view.

Yes, but that is not what the height and width attributes are. They say 
nothing about the image and everything about the size at which the image 
is drawn.

> There's even an edge case where specifying incorrect dimensions could 
> still be considered semantic.  Unfortunately, I can't find the site I'm 
> thinking of, but I've seen a site somewhere that created art by using 
> small images and stretching them for the pixelation effect.  In this 
> case, stretching the image is part of the artwork's artistic value and 
> meaning, not just it's presentation, and it would lose it all if the 
> image were shown at it's actual size.

There are always edge cases. The distinction between semantics and 
presentation is a fuzzy one. Nonetheless, I think most of the time 
height and width as specified on today's img tags are clearly 

?Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 04:42:35 UTC

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