- From: Philippe Wittenbergh <phiw13@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:16:52 +0900
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org, Peter Albertsson <Peter.Albertsson@spray.se>
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:21:41 +0200 (EET), Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, olivier Thereaux wrote: > > > The "valid" icons aren't ads, so if this tool removes them as such, > > it's broken, and unfortunately there's little we can do about it. > >[ ...] > > The heuristics can be fairly simplistic, so that they perhaps inspect only > the width and height attributes in HTML to determine the image's size, > not anything set in CSS, still less the actual image's properties. > > I haven't studied whether the dimensions are in fact typical in that > sense. But if they are, then changing the dimensions might affect the > situation. Maybe even omitting the width and height attributes might > matter. I'm not saying you should do so, but technically, there are > things you _could_ do if you wish to increase the visibility of the icons. Although I've no idea how Symantecs filters work, I do now that this size of images are blocked by my user stylesheet. Those 88 by 31 images fall in the category of small ads unfortunately. I had the same problem with some logos a client wanted to include. A simple workaround for those problems would be to change the image size slightly (89 by 31 px would escape out of most filters). Philippe -- p._/_ http://emps.l-c-n.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 03:32:58 UTC