Andreyka Lechev wrote:
On 07.11.2006, at 19:49, Shadow2531 wrote:
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.
[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.
Don't forget that percentage values are relative values. And in
current browser implementations, setting those values via CSS-rules or
using width- and height-attributes are leading to different results!
It's due to different parents to calculate actual (pixel) values from!
Also, if only one of either the "width" or "height" attributes is set,
some browsers will scale the other dimension automatically. Consider
this example:
<img src="100x50.png" width="50">
Some browsers will scale height to be 25 in this instance, given an
image with a width of 100 pixels and a height of 50 pixels. This is
quite useful when the height or width of an image needs to be fixed
without distorting the aspect ratio.
--
Greg Kilwein
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
