- From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:32:20 +1300
On Oct 14, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > ... > I don't think "If both attributes are specified, then the ratio of the > specified width to the specified height must be the same as the ratio > of the logical width to the logical height in the image file." solves > any real problem given what browsers already have to implement, so I'd > remove that sentence. > ... As a real-world example, Launchpad currently stretches the width of static images to produce simple bar charts of how much particular software packages have been localized. <https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu> We have to specify both width= and height= for the images, because specifying width= alone causes w3m to stretch the images vertically to maintain their aspect ratio. Meanwhile, elsewhere we're using <canvas>, so we should really be declaring our pages to be HTML 5 site-wide. The sentence Henri quoted would require us to choose between server-side generation of every chart image, incompatibility with w3m, or non-conformance with any HTML specification. I know w3m isn't exactly a major browser, but I don't see any good reason for having to make that choice. Cheers -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2007 03:32:20 UTC