- From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:00:29 -0500
- To: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, public-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Jens Meiert wrote: >>> 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). Use of the style attribute and presentational attributes are effectively the same thing. The reason that presentational attributes are frowned upon is because they are in the source, strewn about the document. This makes maintenance more difficult since the document is more difficult to read, edit, troubleshoot, etc. I don’t see how using the style attribute solves any of those things. IMO, use of the width and height attributes are not presentational as long as they describe the intrinsic dimensions of the content. A 300×400 image with width and height attributes specifying such causes no change in presentation; it just causes the browser to reserve space so that the document loads more smoothly.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 06:01:01 UTC