This is probably why it's not a commonly-used CSS tag. That and the phpBB authors likely don't have a good grasp of CSS (sadly not a lot of people do :-( ). Plus, the phpBB forum software here is very old (upgrading to the new stuff would be a serious undertaking, specifically ensuring all the old posts get retained).
And what makes you think someone actually wants their uploaded image scaled? Please don't propose it be made into a per-profile option; I think most people like the forum here for its content, not for its avatars.
For sake of comparison, I went through total hell trying to keep browsers from doing pixel interpolation on the Parodius home page logo (once that feature got implemented). The idea was to use a small animated picture and then use an exact 2x scale to increase the size of the image
while keeping the pixellated look. This is what I had to resort to:
Code:
img.class {
width: 338px; /* Actual size desired on-screen */
border: 0px;
/* Non-CSS-standard options below */
-ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor;
image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges;
}
I'm still quite sore/angry over this, specifically because both of the necessary options you see are non-standard. I tend not to care much about Opera, but I imagine they're rolling their eyes over both attributes too. Here are the relevant docs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library ... 85%29.aspx
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/CSS/Image-rendering
Phooey.