HTML img tags?

[handymanshandle]

So I know pretty much nothing about coding/programming, I mean I know about the langauges like HTML, C+, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, etc. However, I was kind of curious if there was more than one way to do an HTML img tag and if there was like a more effective way or something like that. I had seen one example do it like this.

 

<img> img <img>

But the way I thought might be better and used on a site I'm doing for a US History 10B project about a certain decade and Google Sites wasn't allowing me to insert an image for whatever reason, so I just figured to try doing it through html.

 

<img src="url" alt="imgtext">

 

I'm not sure if there's one way that's better or not for adding an image into a website with HTML. I mean the second one worked. But I just kinda wanted input/thoughts about putting an image in with HTML.

[thekeemo]

img src is how you do it

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, thekeemo said:

img src is how you do it

I didn't try the first one, I did the second one and it worked just fine. I just had seen an example somewhere where it had done the first one I put in my OP.

[thekeemo]

Just now, wcreek said:

I didn't try the first one, I did the second one and it worked just fine. I just had seen an example somewhere where it had done the first one I put in my OP.

maybe on a forum that uses a syntax that uses < > instead of [ ]

[themctipers]

2 minutes ago, wcreek said:

I didn't try the first one, I did the second one and it worked just fine. I just had seen an example somewhere where it had done the first one I put in my OP.

img src is the only way to do it as far as i know.

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, thekeemo said:

maybe on a forum that uses a syntax that uses < > instead of [ ]

It's possible.

1 hour ago, themctipers said:

img src is the only way to do it as far as i know.

Would seem that way.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, wcreek said:

So I know pretty much nothing about coding/programming, I mean I know about the langauges like HTML, C+, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, etc. However, I was kind of curious if there was more than one way to do an HTML img tag and if there was like a more effective way or something like that. I had seen one example do it like this.

 

<img> img <img>

But the way I thought might be better and used on a site I'm doing for a US History 10B project about a certain decade and Google Sites wasn't allowing me to insert an image for whatever reason, so I just figured to try doing it through html.

 

<img src="url" alt="imgtext">

 

I'm not sure if there's one way that's better or not for adding an image into a website with HTML. I mean the second one worked. But I just kinda wanted input/thoughts about putting an image in with HTML.

That first one will never work in html

 

<img src="url" alt="alt text" width="xx" height="xx">

Basically it's a self closing tag, and you don't need to close it

 

[handymanshandle]

1 hour ago, jkeasley said:

That first one will never work in html

 

<img src="url" alt="alt text" width="xx" height="xx">

Basically it's a self closing tag, and you don't need to close it

 

 

That's cool to know that if I ever need to do any more images  in HTML because Google Sites decided to remain to be fussy that I can just skip out on doing the ending tag.

 

I suspect that if I don't put the width and height it defaults to whatever the native width and height of the image is from the image source?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, wcreek said:

 

That's cool to know that if I ever need to do any more images  in HTML because Google Sites decided to remain to be fussy that I can just skip out on doing the ending tag.

 

I suspect that if I don't put the width and height it defaults to whatever the native width and height of the image is from the image source?

Yeah it will default. You can use pixels or percentages

[AlTech]

6 hours ago, wcreek said:

 

That's cool to know that if I ever need to do any more images  in HTML because Google Sites decided to remain to be fussy that I can just skip out on doing the ending tag.

 

I suspect that if I don't put the width and height it defaults to whatever the native width and height of the image is from the image source?

And mark as solved for the post which helped the most

[Crowes]

On 07/06/2016 at 1:19 AM, jkeasley said:

That first one will never work in html

 

<img src="url" alt="alt text" width="xx" height="xx">

Basically it's a self closing tag, and you don't need to close it

 

Self-closing tags are a browser feature, not a language one. It doesn't work in all.

[Gachr]

On 07/06/2016 at 2:19 AM, jkeasley said:

That first one will never work in html

 

<img src="url" alt="alt text" width="xx" height="xx">

Basically it's a self closing tag, and you don't need to close it

 

I had never used the width and height attributes, isn't it better to use CSS for it?

[vorticalbox]

7 hours ago, Gachr said:

I had never used the width and height attributes, isn't it better to use CSS for it?

depends. Css is good for styleing all images to a size or groups of images to a size but creating a class or id in css for 1. Image seems pointless so you can just do it inline but yes css os the preferred why to style html.

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Gachr said:

I had never used the width and height attributes, isn't it better to use CSS for it?

I use inline stuff for width and height, thataway you can adjust it per image...much easier in the end

[vorticalbox]

On ‎08‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 10:32 PM, jkeasley said:

I use inline stuff for width and height, thataway you can adjust it per image...much easier in the end

ideally images should be uniform not different sizes. What I mean say images in a blog post should be the same size and thumbnails should also be the same size.

 

it's always better to break it down into groups or classes and style in css.

 

your website will look much better for it.