On Sep 5, 11:33 am, blinde <bruce.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > can you please articulate why one might prefer using inline styling > for image height and width, rather than old school height and width > attritbutes?
For most modern doctypes, standard width and height attributes should only contain the actual dimensions of the image, as those attributes are considered descriptive markup, and not presentational markup. (The fact that most user agents *do* presentationally resize images based on those attributes notwithstanding.) If you want to change the presentation of the image (e.g. make the image display at a size that is not its actual size, which is rarely a good idea, but still, it's allowed), then that is presentational information and should be in CSS, not descriptive attributes. So, markup = descriptive, CSS = presentational: * Height and width attributes = "The image you are loading is this size." = descriptive markup * CSS height and width = "Display the image you are loading at this size." = presentational markup It's a subtle difference, but it makes us pedants happy. :-) (Personally, I tend to prefer using CSS, primarily because I'm usually going to style an image inline anyway, so why add three attributes when you can work with only add one?) --Kerri -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "BBEdit Talk" discussion group on Google Groups. To post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bbedit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/bbedit?hl=en> If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please email "supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group. Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit>
