- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:29:50 +0200
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
> > The usual way to address that is by setting "width" and "height" > > attributes which should be replaced by the "style" attribute (that > > is presentational by design). > > In my opinion, it is extremely silly to think that height='' and > width='' are bad but style='width: ...; height: ...;' is good. I'd > rather have height='' and width='' on all elements that are replaced > elements in the normal case. Assuming that we don't want any presentational stuff in our documents at all, but judging the "style" attribute as the only attribute we would need "in case", using "style" for image measurements /is/ better than using "width" and "height" attributes, albeit it's not "good" (nobody claimed that). > > 2. Delivering the ad with 'border="0"' (or worse). (Presentational.) > > 3. Delivering the ad with 'style="border: 0;"'. (More kids in town.) > > Those are both presentational. (I'm not implying that presentational > was bad.) That's of course right, it's been omitted due to above reasoning. > > Consequently, I consider it not necessarily wise to drop the > > "style" attribute. > > I agree, FWIW. (Perhaps for different reasons, though.) Reasons' what we need, presumably. -- Jens Meiert http://meiert.com/en/
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 12:30:11 UTC