I discovered the bug by sheer chance...I dont plan on resizing the image
in the site.
But as to the issue, sometimes image resizing in the html is very handy.
Look at it the other way, are we no longer going to be able to use the
height and width without making the image render badly? Might as well
get rid of them then...Is Mozilla trying to make the artists more money?
I dont want to go back to the artist every time I want to shave a few
pixels! :)
That doesn't really make sense...that's why I call it a bug.
jon
You wrote:
> Yes but the spec doesn't say how it should be rendered. If you're gonna
> change the size of an image to something smaller, you're obviously gonna
> lose some sharpness/detail/etc., just like making it bigger won't result
> in a more detailed picture, you'll just end up with a pixelly mess.
>
> For testing purposes, I saved the header.gif image and made my own
> little testcase, a simple body and an img tag, with the height and width
> you specified. I then checked the resulting page in Photoshop, measuring
> the header.gif's size. Mozilla *is* resizing it to the specified height
> and width, so I don't see a bug...
>
> Offtopic question: why resize it in the first place? Why not just crop
> it to the size you want. Results in faster rendering of the page, as any
> browser that encounters the page won't have to resize it first.
>
>
