I sometimes enjoy the ability to clone images that have no src or no width or no style. I certainly like to vary the height and width attributes via setAttribute, and I might like, in the future, to be able to attach an <animate> tag (ala SMIL) to the height or width attribute of an <img>. If I had to do this through CSS, it would be a minor setback.

<img src="hoopla" height="50" width="40" alt="oscillating image of hoopla">
<animate attributeName="width" values="10;100;10" dur="4s" repeatCount="indefinite">
</img>

DD
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Edridge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gareth Hay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Sander Tekelenburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Benjamin West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?


Gareth Hay wrote:
If i'm not mistaken, the idea of separation of content and style means you can use your own css, or even none at all, and still have the ability to view the content.

If a page is dependent on the css, then, although in a separate file, it is fundamentally not separate at all, and we might as well just shove the css into the same html file anyway.

Gareth

On 16 Mar 2007, at 20:27, Benjamin West wrote:

On 3/16/07, Dean Edridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Firstly, the chance of someone not being able to access the CSS for a web
page is I'm guessing, pretty slim.

<img style="height: 50px; width: 50px;" /> Why is accessing CSS a problem?

-Ben West




--No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007 11:27 a.m.


I never proposed that a web page should be dependant on CSS, nor did I say that there shouldn't be a separation of content and style. Quite the opposite. I said that if there is no CSS available for an <img> tag, the browser should just display the image the best it can(and they do this quite well already, in my experience). And that this very rare occasion of CSS failure does not warrant the mandatory requirement of in-line styling of the <img> tag.

Dean Edridge




Reply via email to