Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Personally, I find this type of answer quite dangerous, as it leads to a
slippery slope. Yes, the default rendering of browsers may be different
when CSS is not available, but does that mean we then still have to
stuff visual cues in HTML? The same rationale would warran
Peter Asquith wrote:
The need for the rows and cols attributes can be seen once you imagine
the page without any CSS styling. Similarly, the requirement for the
size attribute on a text input element and width and height on img the
element.
Ultimately CSS may not be available on all the devi
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
I agree with the thread starter that the visual display size of a
textarea should really be defined via CSS. If these were maxrows and
maxcols, it would be a case for having it in the HTML, but as it stands
this seems to muddy the line a bit too much...
The need for
Scott Swabey (Lafinboy Productions) wrote:
I declare the height/width of textareas in CSS and don't use cols/rows in
the markup. I haven't come across any problems in [ limited ] testing so
far.
Unfortunately a textarea without rows and cols attributes won't pass
validation for xhtml 1.0 stri
Some interesting points covering this issue on this list in May:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg17620.html
Visible height and width do matter in text-based browsers that won't
recognise CSS, to give the end user some indication as to the expected
length of his response. A
> The rows and cols attributes - mandatory for any textarea
> element - defines the *VISIBLE* height and width of the
> element. So why are they in the mark-up? I've googled long
> and hard and haven't found anything to the contrary. Surely
> these attributes should be defined in the CSS.
>
>
The rows and cols attributes - mandatory for any textarea element - defines
the *VISIBLE* height and width of the element. So why are they in the
mark-up? I've googled long and hard and haven't found anything to the
contrary. Surely these attributes should be defined in the CSS.
Any thoughts?
***
