On 11/7/06, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought the proposal was that only that (setting height and width to the
intrinsic size of the image) would be conforming, but that rendering would
still be the same.
Yeh, in example method, this is the suggestion:
(at least from what I got out of the proposal)
[conforming]
<img src="276x110.png" alt="fallback text" title="description">
<img src="276x110.png" width="276" height="110" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
[non-conforming]
<img src="276x110.png" width="400" height="200" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
<img src="276x110.png" width="50%" height="50%" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
<img src="276x110.png" width="276" alt="fallback text" title="description">
Note: For backwards-compatibility, even though these are
non-conforming, the width and or height attribute values are still
applied to the image for rendering (if css doesn't override).
[encouraged if you need to resize the image]
selectorThatMatchesTheImage {
width: 400px;
height: 200px;
}
<img src="276x110.png" width="276" height="110" alt="fallback text"
title="description">
[encouraged if you need to resize the image - alt]
<img src="276x110.png" style="width: 50%; height: 50%;" width="276"
height="110" alt="fallback text" title="description">
If that's correct, doing things the proposed, encouraged, conforming
way seems fine as far as UAs that support css are concerned.
--
burnout426
