I'm in the practice of specifying img width and height in my style
definitions, although I usually use the actual size of the image. I'm
reworking the style and it would be convenient to leave image size
unspecified unless I need to change its dispayed size.

What, if any, are the reasons why an image size should be specified in
a stylesheet if it will be displayed in its actual size?

--
Haines Brown

Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

>I'm in the practice of specifying img width and height in my style
>definitions, although I usually use the actual size of the image. I'm
>reworking the style and it would be convenient to leave image size
>unspecified unless I need to change its dispayed size.
>
>What, if any, are the reasons why an image size should be specified in
>a stylesheet if it will be displayed in its actual size?

Image dimensions should normally be specified in the markup. As always,
CSS is optional and the purpose of specifying dimensions for
embedded/replaced content is to allow the UA to layout a page before the
dependencies have finished downloading, or perhaps the UA is configured
not to load the dependencies at all.

--
Spartanicus

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 12:58:14 -0400, "Harlan Messinger"
<h.messinger@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Neal" <neal413@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:opsb9lo8ku6v6656@news.individual.net... 
>
>The browser doesn't interpret HTML differently depending on whether it's
>hard-coded or generated by server-side code.
>

I have a feeling that what Neal was getting at was to generate the
page by some dynamic means and then have the software locate the image
file on disk and read its header to find its width and height to
include in the image element before generating it.

This seems a little like overkill to me, but there's not really any
reason why it *couldn't* work. (assuming the images are actually
stored as files on disk)

-Claire