Nathan Rutman schrieb:
....
4) Specifying height and width on images by default was a trend made
popular in the late 90's, where slow-to-render table-based layouts were
used (which relied heavily on images "pushing" the cells around to the
correct size/location) and everyone was using dialup access. The
problem was that the small placeholder used by the browser would shift
content around when the image was loaded at its proper size. With
today's Internet, where a large client base is using broadband and
developers are utilizing near-instantaneous CSS-positioned elements,
there might not be much of a need to specify the image dimensions. I'm
not sure it's necessary in most cases. No matter where you define the
height/width, that is one more step you'd have to take if you ever
updated the image in the future with one that isn't the same dimensions.
Nathan,
this can lead to misunderstanding.
I fear that some people have experienced IE6 and Fx1.0.4 let some page
elements jump while rendering the page, when there is no dimension on
images/their containers specified at all.
The designer with a quick connection and appropriate cache settings
might not see it, and some users are wondering what he is paid for.
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/05/10/image_attrib/comments/#c011669
Ingo
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
