As far as I am aware Clive, it basically means that the browser has to ³look inside² the image and work out how to render it on the page, at the size it wants to be, rather than just relying on the source code in the HTML, and doing it at X x Y. Whether this makes a difference on fast computers like those we have today I wouldn¹t be sure. But I think back in the old days (ooh years ago!) ;) It would have possibly been an issue. I **think** I am right. But don¹t roast me if I am not :) Howard -- On 17/5/04 4:27 pm, "Clive R Sweeney" <clive at designshift.com> wrote: > It's become second nature now to *always* include the height and width > for images, but what is the downside of not including dimension > attributes in an image tag? Is it that the page will load more slowly > and that the page display will change as the images load? Or is there > more to it than that? > > ::. clive > > Clive R Sweeney > Durham, North Carolina > > -- -- image100 Howard Scott internet project manager howard at image100.com image100 limited 3 soho street london W1D 3DG tel: +44 (0) 20 7534 8065 fax: +44 (0) 20 7434 1663 web: www.image100.com This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail. Whilst every endeavour is taken to ensure that e-mails are free from viruses, no liability can be accepted and the recipient is requested to use their own virus checking software.