ping chaddy

Discussion in 'HTML' started by richard, Aug 23, 2008.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    Explain then why it is the validator at w3 never gives any errors when
    there is an image?

    <img src="abc.jpg" alt="">

    Valid coding. No height, no width.

    http://oldies.1littleworld.com/index2.html

    <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Foldies.1littleworld.com%2Findex2.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0>

    No errors.
     
    richard, Aug 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    Roy A. Guest

    On 23 Aug, 06:49, richard <> wrote:
    > Explain then why it is the validator at w3 never gives any errors when
    > there is an image?
    >
    > <img src="abc.jpg" alt="">
    >
    > Valid coding. No height, no width.
    >
    > http://oldies.1littleworld.com/index2.html
    >
    > <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Foldies.1littleworld.co...>
    >
    > No errors.


    <!ATTLIST IMG
    %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events
    --
    src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
    alt %Text; #REQUIRED -- short description --
    longdesc %URI; #IMPLIED -- link to long description
    (complements alt) --
    name CDATA #IMPLIED -- name of image for scripting
    --
    height %Length; #IMPLIED -- override height --
    width %Length; #IMPLIED -- override width --
    usemap %URI; #IMPLIED -- use client-side image map --
    ismap (ismap) #IMPLIED -- use server-side image map --
    >


    Only the src and the alt attribute is required. Height and width is
    known as soon as the image is loaded.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG
     
    Roy A., Aug 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Roy A."
    <> wrote:

    >On 23 Aug, 06:49, richard <> wrote:
    >> Explain then why it is the validator at w3 never gives any errors when
    >> there is an image?
    >>
    >> <img src="abc.jpg" alt="">
    >>
    >> Valid coding. No height, no width.
    >>
    >> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/index2.html
    >>
    >> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Foldies.1littleworld.co...>
    >>
    >> No errors.

    >
    ><!ATTLIST IMG
    > %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events
    >--
    > src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
    > alt %Text; #REQUIRED -- short description --
    > longdesc %URI; #IMPLIED -- link to long description
    > (complements alt) --
    > name CDATA #IMPLIED -- name of image for scripting



    Precisely. Yet there are the so called experts around here who insist
    one MUST absolutely include the parameters.

    The only reason they are doing it is because they can't find fault
    with anything else to bitch about.

    The way I see it, if it works, validates, looks halfway decent, screw
    these pathetic experts.
     
    richard, Aug 23, 2008
    #3
  4. richard wrote:

    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Roy A."
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 23 Aug, 06:49, richard <> wrote:
    >>> Explain then why it is the validator at w3 never gives any errors when
    >>> there is an image?
    >>>
    >>> <img src="abc.jpg" alt="">
    >>>
    >>> Valid coding. No height, no width.
    >>>
    >>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/index2.html
    >>>
    >>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Foldies.1littleworld.co...>
    >>>
    >>> No errors.

    >>
    >><!ATTLIST IMG
    >> %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events
    >>--
    >> src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
    >> alt %Text; #REQUIRED -- short description --
    >> longdesc %URI; #IMPLIED -- link to long description
    >> (complements alt) --
    >> name CDATA #IMPLIED -- name of image for scripting

    >
    >
    > Precisely. Yet there are the so called experts around here who insist
    > one MUST absolutely include the parameters.
    >
    > The only reason they are doing it is because they can't find fault
    > with anything else to bitch about.
    >
    > The way I see it, if it works, validates, looks halfway decent, screw
    > these pathetic experts.


    In at least some browsers, the page will render better if the dimensions
    are included. That's not about validation and that's not about experts;
    that's about making visiting the page a better experience.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
     
    Blinky the Shark, Aug 23, 2008
    #4
  5. richard

    Mark A. Boyd Guest

    (Specs after "name" re-inserted from Roy's post)

    richard posted in alt.html:

    > On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:17:26 -0700 (PDT), "Roy A."
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On 23 Aug, 06:49, richard <> wrote:
    >>> Explain then why it is the validator at w3 never gives any errors when
    >>> there is an image?
    >>>
    >>> <img src="abc.jpg" alt="">
    >>>
    >>> Valid coding. No height, no width.
    >>>
    >>> http://oldies.1littleworld.com/index2.html
    >>>
    >>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://oldies.1littleworld.co.
    >>> ..>
    >>>
    >>> No errors.

    >>
    >><!ATTLIST IMG
    >> %attrs; -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events
    >>--
    >> src %URI; #REQUIRED -- URI of image to embed --
    >> alt %Text; #REQUIRED -- short description --
    >> longdesc %URI; #IMPLIED -- link to long description
    >> (complements alt) --
    >> name CDATA #IMPLIED -- name of image for scripting
    >> --
    >> height %Length; #IMPLIED -- override height --
    >> width %Length; #IMPLIED -- override width --
    >> usemap %URI; #IMPLIED -- use client-side image map --
    >> ismap (ismap) #IMPLIED -- use server-side image map --

    >
    >
    > Precisely. Yet there are the so called experts around here who insist
    > one MUST absolutely include the parameters.


    If you're referring to your recent "pet project done!" thread, nobody in that
    entire thread said they are required. Even Chaddy's flame didn't imply
    that. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

    > The only reason they are doing it is because they can't find fault
    > with anything else to bitch about.


    Still an average day, richard?

    > The way I see it, if it works, validates, looks halfway decent, screw
    > these pathetic experts.


    Create your site any way you want to.

    If you post the URL in alt.html, you might expect to get some constructive
    criticism. What would be the point otherwise? I know I wouldn't post a URL
    here expecting to get a bunch of Flickr "cool", "great site", "brilliant"
    responses.

    If the experts point things out that you don't like or agree with, it doesn't
    really make them pathetic, does it?


    --
    Mark A. Boyd
    Keep-On-Learnin' :)
     
    Mark A. Boyd, Aug 23, 2008
    #5
  6. richard wrote:

    > Explain then why it is the validator at w3 never gives any errors when
    > there is an image?


    Sense the question does not make. Neither does your Subject line, or your
    From line. So please keep using that From line until you have a clue. Thank
    you.
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Aug 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:58:14 -0700, /richard/:

    > Precisely. Yet there are the so called experts around here who insist
    > one MUST absolutely include the parameters.


    Knowing the dimensions of an image before it is requested would
    speed the layout in means it won't block the progressive rendering
    until the image gets requested and its dimensions get found, but
    that's generally true only for inline images. The block boxes
    following the one containing the image can still be laid out without
    waiting for the image to get loaded. So:

    <p class="figure"><img alt="..." src="..."></p>

    won't cause the page to "load" slower. It will just cause the
    following block boxes to be shifted (after the image gets requested)
    vertically without being re-flowed. To optimize/prevent the visual
    effect of shifting during the progressive rendering you could hint
    the rendering engine about the dimensions of an image through a
    style sheet, e.g.:

    img[alt="..."] { width: 100px; height: 200px; }
    img.icon { width: 40px; height: 40px; }
    img[src="..."] { width: 300px; height: 150px; }

    IE 6 does not understand CSS attribute selectors so one can't match
    IMG elements on the 'alt' or 'src' attribute and adding a 'class' or
    'id' attribute on every image is not a viable option. For this
    browser I just choose to not optimize this, but I don't pollute my
    markup with 'width' and 'height' attributes on IMG elements.

    --
    Stanimir
     
    Stanimir Stamenkov, Aug 23, 2008
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bernd wegener

    Piping ping into perl-prog

    bernd wegener, Sep 15, 2004, in forum: Perl
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    660
    Jim Gibson
    Sep 22, 2004
  2. Fábio

    ping

    Fábio, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    618
    Fábio
    Jul 2, 2003
  3. Fábio

    Ping in ASP.NET

    Fábio, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    500
    Fabio
    Jul 2, 2003
  4. Joe (GKF)

    Hey, Chaddy! about frames -

    Joe (GKF), Mar 14, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    366
    Joe (GKF)
    Mar 16, 2007
  5. 1001 Webs

    Apologies to Chaddy

    1001 Webs, Nov 15, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,050
    Doug Baiter
    Nov 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page