- From: Shadow2531 <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:49:07 -0500
On 11/7/06, Anne van Kesteren <fora at annevankesteren.nl> wrote:
> I thought the proposal was that only that (setting height and width to the
> intrinsic size of the image) would be conforming, but that rendering would
> still be the same.
Yeh, in example method, this is the suggestion:
(at least from what I got out of the proposal)
[conforming]
<img src="276x110.png" alt="fallback text" title="description">
<img src="276x110.png" width="276" height="110" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
[non-conforming]
<img src="276x110.png" width="400" height="200" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
<img src="276x110.png" width="50%" height="50%" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
<img src="276x110.png" width="276" alt="fallback text" title="description">
Note: For backwards-compatibility, even though these are
non-conforming, the width and or height attribute values are still
applied to the image for rendering (if css doesn't override).
[encouraged if you need to resize the image]
selectorThatMatchesTheImage {
width: 400px;
height: 200px;
}
<img src="276x110.png" width="276" height="110" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
[encouraged if you need to resize the image - alt]
<img src="276x110.png" style="width: 50%; height: 50%;" width="276"
height="110" alt="fallback text" title="description">
If that's correct, doing things the proposed, encouraged, conforming
way seems fine as far as UAs that support css are concerned.
--
burnout426
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2006 08:49:07 UTC