Posted by Roy A. on 11/02/07 22:17

Tomasz Chmielewski skrev:
> I noticed that Firefox ignores img height and width.

First of all, a vendor don't have to follow any specifications.

> This can be demonstrated with the simple code pasted below (or, just go
> to http://wpkg.org/test.html).

Thank you for that example. It shows that Firefox is getting ready
enough to bend som rules.

> The code below points to a non-existing image (or an image which can't
> be fetched).
> In IE or Konqueror, we will see a 400px x 200px blank space.

"This property specifies the content height of boxes generated by
block-level and replaced elements."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visudet.html#propdef-height

> In Firefox and Seamonkey we just don't have any blank space (specified
> by height and width), so website look will likely break without an image.

That's true. But why don't you supply an image? Don't use images as an
plaseholder, maybe that's the reason.

> Which browser's behaviour is correct?

These people are just playing with words. The specification says:

"This property specifies the content height/width of boxes generated
by block-level and replaced elements."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visudet.html

If there is no block-level or replaced elements to genereate any
height/width, there is always a
property who specifies it.

I have read all the specifications, but it is to much form me. Maybe
someone can cum up
with something I didn't understand.

[Back to original message]