Hello All -

To be clear:

• Lady... I meant no disrespect, and believe that you do a great service here. I have no knowledge of your other professional work. The sentence I used was not directed at you, but at each poster here (myself included, of course), or on any other Forum for that matter. I say it again, it is not the amount of posts you have about a subject, or even the person posting, but what you can actually do -- how you apply the subject matter that is important. "Experts" are not determined by volume of posts. Posters themselves are not important. Concepts, techniques and applications are important.
• Expert? We all have some things to contribute, and if we disagree, so what? Does picking apart threads make one an expert? Who cares? The readers will decide what to take from it. So far, we are simply Forum posters with different points of view. I did use "expert" for those article writers... but I admit, they are just writers with different points of view. The important thing is what you can take and use from what's presented. The rest is irrelevant.
• The point that there is some degradation of an image when the browser resizes it is true -- in today's browsers. Different eyes will decide how minimal/acceptable it may be. But focusing on the negative fails to consider the ongoing improvements in browser image rendering, and that even today, the technique (with the right image) can work passably well. Heck, remember when "they" said that photos would "never" render well on the web?
• You can comb articles for frustration with current browser image resizing deficiencies, but the fact remains that the articles cited above were written about smart usage of image scaling which is valuable in some applications today... and for forward thinkers... tomorrow and beyond.
• Regarding "egos" -- interesting, when you consider the source writer of that word in this thread. As a WebMaster, it's always good to consider the source.
• Is it really about "egos", or about the presentation of techniques, solutions and applications here, so people can debate them and use what they like? Wouldn't best use of a forum be to work constructively together? Egos don't matter. WebMaster techniques do. Honest debate -- about a concept... not about a personality is ultimately what is important.

Finally, you say "bollocks" (which from the link given shows the true original meaning as "a word of Anglo Saxon origin, meaning "testicles"). I said "Bullocks" meaning, "A castrated bull; a steer." I admit I looked up the wrong word... but they both go to the thrust (sorry) of the case here, if you don't misrepresent their actual meanings.

The important question is this: will you look backwards and... well... cut yourself off from an important webmaster technique, or will you look forward, keep your Bollocks about you, and factor in the image scaling technique when and where appropriate?

People can make up their own mind on whether a webmaster technique is Bollocks (the bastardized derogatory meaning), and which is not. It doesn't matter who says it is Bollocks, or says it isn't. What matters is what actually works... now, and in the future.

Yours -
Scott

My god what have I done? I shouldve known better than to ever ask for opinions on web standards :P. As a past forum mod/admin myself seeing all this argument is killing me lol. Interesting (and entertaining) read though.

Anyways, taking the middle road (as I tend to do), I can see the validity in both points. I am definetly sticking with using html, not only for current usability but because Im not exactly what you would call an expert with css and so I avoid it as much as I can.

That said thanks for the heads up on the possible evolution in web design.

Anyways back to fumbling around with my code. With the ammount of help/advice I get from this site I hope you guys arent too dissapointed when I show you my first creation :P.