- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:08:22 +0000 (UTC)
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > 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. As far as I'm aware, the behaviour you describe for w3m matches what all the UAs do. I'm not sure that this usage of <img> is one that the spec today considers valid. Wouldn't <canvas> be the better way to do this? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 20:08:22 UTC