Posted by Ben C on 11/02/07 23:24

On 2007-11-02, Roy A. <royarneskar@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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??

The question is, is it still a replaced element when the image isn't
actually there and the alt text is displayed instead?

If not, then you can make sense of what's happening by observing that
Firefox displays it as a non-replaced inline, and Opera as a
non-replaced inline-block.

[Back to original message]