|
|
Posted by Roy A. on 11/02/07 23:17
On 2 Nov, 18:51, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 2 Nov, 17:17, Tomasz Chmielewski <t...@nospam.syneticon.net> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that Firefox ignores img height and width.
> > 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.
>
> By "ignores the height of an image", just which image did you mean?
The OP did not say that height and width did refer to any image. An
image is an
replaced element. So I think he was talking about the box around the
image.
> You didn't supply an image, so the size of it becomes an irrelvance.
Why? An image is an replaced element, it's the box around that's
importent. Just look at how the object element is rendered, without an
image, object or other references. I really don't think Firefox should
make exeptions like that. I know other browsers do that. But Firefox??
> Instead FF sizes the relevant box to be a suitable sive to display the
> alt text you supplied. On the whole, this seems like a more useful
> behaviour, IMHO.
For you it might seems like a more useful behviour. But the rest of us
would have some
problem:
"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.
>
> What do you mean by "break" ? If you mean that the layout of the
> website will break if the image isn't present, then that's the fault
> of the coder for relying on using images to control the size and
> layout of things!
No, the fault is that the coder is relaying on height and width when
dispalying the alt text.
> That technique has been obsolete for over 10 years,
> since HTML 4 and CSS first appeared.
Now we can't specify height and widht on images? I don't think so.
[Back to original message]
|