Re: On markdown images

[Jean Louis]

* Yuri Khan <yuri.v.khan@gmail.com> [2021-05-01 13:00]:
> On Sat, 1 May 2021 at 16:43, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> 
> > I think this is minimal valid SRC IMG tag in HTML:
> >
> > <src imag="file.jpg" height="120" width="100" alt="My file"/>
> >
> > So far none markdown that I know but Discount markdown does not
> > provide height, width attributes. This makes HTML invalid and in
> > general can disturb the HTML display and accessibility. Such pages
> > will not pass the test here: https://validator.w3.org/
> 
> You have been misinformed on that point. The width and height
> attributes are, and always have been, optional on an img element. See
> specs:
> 
> HTML 5 — https://www.w3.org/html/wg/spec/the-map-element.html#attr-dim-width
> HTML 4.01 — https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#adef-width-IMG
> HTML 3.2 — https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/SPSD-html32-20180315/#img
> HTML 2.0 did not have width and height attributes on img elements.

You see, after so many years, I get this smacking slap and come back
to reality.

Who knows what is the real reason why I started using it. I think back
in time, before maybe 10 years there were different directions in
creating HTML documents.

Probably I was using page load speed or other type of validator and
have mistaken it for HTML validator, thanks for correction.

https://web.dev/optimize-cls/?utm_source=lighthouse&utm_medium=unknown#images-without-dimensions

For example Google Page speed says:

Image elements do not have explicit width and height
Set an explicit width and height o


-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/
https://rms-support-letter.github.io/