RE: height declaration

> From:	John Russell [SMTP:ve3ll@rac.ca]
> 
if a table declares height=   then ????
>  
	[DJW:]  The result is undefined for both strict and
	transitional versions of HTML 4.01; there is no 
	height attribute for tables.  The problem with height
	and tables is that it frustrates incremental rendering,
	whereas width can facilitate it.  width is allowed, even
	in the strict DTD.

> Amaya uses the height setting to be consistent with
>     the img height attribute which clips image to the speced height
>     but this leaves problems as shown in attached file .....
	[DJW:]  
	If one makes the assumption that height maps to
	the style sheet attribute of the same name, this is
	probably wrong.  Actually, HTML 4.01 transitional requires
	images to be scaled if a height attribute is specified.  
	CSS2 permits, but doesn't require (may) scaling based on 
	width, but says nothing about height (replaced elements, like
	IMG, only).  (Allowing scaling for width only may be an oversight,
	but is quite likely to be because of concerns about incremental
	rendering, in cases where the replaced objects height is not
	known early.)

	Although an interaction between overflow from a style sheet and
	and height from an attribute is probably a grey area, I would
	tend to say that this handling of image is broken.

>  
> If there is no spec on how to handle this conflict,  it is easy
> enough to err in favor of the user by:
> 
	[DJW:]  CSS2 basically says that it depends on the setting
	of height and overflow CSS properties.  height defaults
	to auto and overflow to visible.

	min-height and max-height also affect the result.

Received on Thursday, 13 July 2000 14:46:08 UTC