[whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?

I think you missed the point, and I maybe already replied to this off- 
list, the last time i clarified this.

The point was raised
>>>>>  Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the  
>>>>> CSS for a web
>>>>> page is I'm guessing, pretty slim.

and all I was doing was pointing out that users may choose to apply  
their own css (even if this is not widespread in use), or even  
disable css altogether.

I don't doubt you do some elaborate and cool things with inline  
styles, I have been known to use them myself, but it is my  
understanding that conceptually, HTML is for content markup and CSS  
for styling that markuped content. Maybe someone can correct me on  
this, if I am incorrect.

Gareth

On 20 Mar 2007, at 22:08, ddailey wrote:

> 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 at 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 15:48:26 UTC