The width/height aren't a requirement in XHTML Transitional/Strict. I don't think this means the W3C don't want us to use them any more, just that you don't have to. I've heard a few people mention the page building thing before, but I think good image compressions and less mark-up will negate this suggested side effect. The only time I've came across problems is in MacIE, and that's only when using images 1px high; which isn't usualy a problem.
Kev*
Ted Drake wrote:
I've wondered about the width and height. What is the story about eliminating the width and height from the image tag. Why do they want us to remove it? Doesn't it help the browser build the page? It certainly would make for easier maintenance.
At what point should we remove it? xhtml strict? xhtml 1.0 transitional? Is it more backwards compatible to keep it in? Should I just take a deep breath and say goodbye to the attributes?
Ted Drake Web Content Editor CSA Travel Protection http://www.csatravelprotection.com
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:10 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Brazilian Portal site Review. Opinions Welcomes
<img src='i/imagenbranca.png' alt='' width='52' height='37' />
this should be done with double quotes and there is no need for width/height in XHTML <img src="i/imagenbranca.png" alt="" /> (double quotes for nul alt tags)
Kev*
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
