W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2008

[whatwg] <img> element comments

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:07:16 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0807300306540.29977@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 01:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > > So I think width and height should not have conformance requirements 
> > > tied to pixel dimensions of the references image file. They are 
> > > presentational, but they are such a useful presentational 
> > > optimization that I think it doesn't make sense to try the get rid 
> > > of that presentationalism just to comply with a principle.
> > 
> > Is the compromise in the spec today acceptable?
> 
> 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.

It solves the problem of authors not being informed when they give the 
wrong dimensions by mistake and end up screwing up the ratio.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 20:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:03 UTC