Add image dimensions to html img tag

[datenimperator]

Img tags should have height and width attributes if possible at all. If not specified, the tag will add them.

[SamWhited]

I disagree; this should be done in CSS (inline if you must). Adding them in the HTML just makes things look cluttered later.

EDIT: And if you need them in the HTML, you can do it yourself easily enough.

[saturnflyer]

I agree with this. Not including height/width can cause weird rendering jumps and doing it yourself means you need to know what the dimensions are every time; if they are automatically calculated, why not use that? @datenimperator can you update the specs or do you need any assistance with that?

[datenimperator]

@SamWhited You're right, it's kind of clumsy to have (possibly conflicting) width/height attributes in css and html.

However, I see that at least once width/height should be set.

<img src="" width="20" height="45" > vs.
<img src="" style="width:20px; height:45px" >

Looking at it, the html attribute is shorter and more readable.

@saturnflyer I need to be able to run the specs. Then I could add proper tests, too.

[saturnflyer]

This sums up my opinion: http://code.google.com/speed/page-speed/docs/rendering.html#SpecifyImageDimensions
We should add width and height. Relying on a stylesheet to set something inherant to the image is putting the details in the wrong place.

[SamWhited]

Actually, that's a good point. As much as I hate seeing this sort of thing in the HTML, it does prevent some (sometimes serious) rendering issues, and is a lot faster than loading and parsing an external stylesheet.

[jackmcpickle]

I'm in favour but only as an option rather than in-forced, not specifying allows the browser to redraw the image in responsive containers.
img { max-width:100%; } then scales the images correctly. If the image dimensions are defined then the image does not scale in proportion.