[whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?

I sometimes enjoy the ability to clone images that have no src or no width 
or no style. I certainly like to vary the height and width attributes via 
setAttribute, and I might like, in the future, to be able to attach an 
<animate> tag (ala SMIL) to the height or width attribute of an <img>. If I 
had to do this through CSS, it would be a minor setback.

<img src="hoopla" height="50" width="40" alt="oscillating image of hoopla">
    <animate attributeName="width" values="10;100;10" dur="4s" 
repeatCount="indefinite">
</img>

DD
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Edridge" <dean@55.co.nz>
To: "Gareth Hay" <gazhay at gmail.com>
Cc: <whatwg at whatwg.org>; "Sander Tekelenburg" <tekelenb at euronet.nl>; 
"Benjamin West" <bewest at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?


> Gareth Hay wrote:
>> If i'm not mistaken, the idea of separation of content and style means 
>> you can use your own css, or even none at all, and still have the ability 
>> to view the content.
>>
>> If a page is dependent on the css, then, although in a separate file, it 
>> is fundamentally not separate at all, and we might as well just shove the 
>> css into the same html file anyway.
>>
>> Gareth
>>
>> On 16 Mar 2007, at 20:27, Benjamin West wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/07, Dean Edridge <dean at 55.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>  Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the CSS for a 
>>>> web
>>>> page is I'm guessing, pretty slim.
>>>
>>> <img style="height: 50px; width: 50px;" />   Why is accessing CSS a 
>>> problem?
>>>
>>> -Ben West
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 
>> 15/03/2007 11:27 a.m.
>>
>>
> I never proposed that a web page should be dependant on CSS, nor did I say 
> that there shouldn't be a separation of content and style. Quite the 
> opposite.
> I said that if there is no CSS available for an <img> tag, the browser 
> should just display the image the best it can(and they do this quite well 
> already, in my experience). And that this very rare occasion of CSS 
> failure does not warrant the mandatory requirement of in-line styling of 
> the <img> tag.
>
> Dean Edridge
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 15:08:05 UTC