- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 08:02:21 +0100
Ernest Cline writes: > > ... proposal to add "height" and "width" attributes to <link> > > specifically for the case of rel=icon, so that authors can provide > > multiple icons and let the UA decide which to use based on their > > size > > Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why wouldn't: > <link rel=icon style="width: 16px; height:16px"> > serve to mark width and height adequately? * The style attribute says _how_ to display something, not what that something _is_. The above says: "Ignore the icon's intrinsic size and scale it to 16 x 16." * CSS is optional, so browsers shouldn't be forced to use it to find out some meta-data. And if a user had elected to turn off CSS for displaying in pages, would a browser still be permitted to use it for this purpose? * Nested attribute syntax is more awkward and error-prone than having width and height directly on the element. > It's even perfectly fine HTML 4 syntax. Why is that interesting? If it's syntax that current browsers already do something useful with then that's a big point in its favour; but if it's something which is currently a no-op then that it happens to be syntactically permitted in an older standard doesn't seem like a benefit over any other syntax which browsers currently ignore. Smylers
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 00:02:21 UTC