- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:45:20 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Mar 3, 2007, at 21:58, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > The question isn't whether or not you should have the ability to scale > > images; it's clear that this is desirable. The question is whether it > > makes sense to put this in HTML as opposed to CSS. Why would HTML be > > the place to put this? > > Because the dimensions vary from image to image, putting the dimensions > in an external style sheet would mean moving the dimensions even further > away from the images they pertain to. Generic reusable styles make sense > in an external sheet. ID selectors specific to particular image files > don't. OTOH, moving the dimensions from attributes to style='' or > <style> within the HTML file is totally pointless from any *practical* > point of view and would make it harder to implement structural HTML > editors that don't tamper with styles. > > As for requiring pixel dimensions to be "correct": No, it shouldn't be > required, because for backwards compat the <img> width and height are in > CSS pixels and image dimensions are in real pixels. With emerging > high-res displays it may soon make sense to have bitmaps whose bitmap > pixels are smaller than CSS pixels. > > As for allowing percentages: Yes, they should be allowed. Percentages > have to be implemented for backwards compat anyway, so pretending that > they aren't there doesn't have a practical advantage when (considering > the above) the attributes themselves should stay. I buy this for pixels. I don't buy it for percentages. The arguments don't apply to those. If you're using percentages, then the values aren't dependent on the image, and you should do it in the medium-specific style sheet. IMHO. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 19:45:20 UTC