Are you asking if the img tag is going to be depreciated?
Printable View
Are you asking if the img tag is going to be depreciated?
I haven't heard that it will.
The only thing I can think of is like "background-image" ?? I don't think they'd deprecate that.
yes, sorry for being so vague. I cannot remember where i read it and was just curious if anyone else had and what is the new way.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Are you asking if the img tag is going to be depreciated?
thanks
michael
Yeah, you can use background-image on a block box to do the same as the img tag. I don't see it being replaced, but if it is, it will be replaced by a generic "replaced element" tag. A tag that you can use not only for images, but for anything that has its own size and shape and can be pasted on the page.
I can't think of anything like that, but that doesn't mean much.
Anyway, I don't see any reason for the img tag to be replaced. The img tag is part of the XHTML 1.0 strict DTD.
As far as I know the only ways you can display an image on your site is via the <img> tag (html not css) or by using a div with the style: background: url("image.gif");
And I highly doubt they will put that in place of the <img> tag as the img tag is a very useful html tag.
-Matt
IFRAME is already deprecated isn't it? I'm pretty sure it's not part of the XHTML Strict DTD.
The problem with IFrame is that its IE only. It should go the same way as Layers and ILayers in NS4.
It should be deprecated as HTML 4.01 should work in all browsers on all systems.
I'm pretty sure it's not IE only, it works in Opera and NS 6.x, and it validates so I assume it's part of the spec.
Yeah, sorry, its NS4 that it didnt work in, thats where ILayer/Layer came into play. And I do believe Opera 5+ supports (not sure about 4)
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/pres...ml#edef-IFRAME
And, it is in the HTML 4.01 Spec, and thats why its validated.
I thin i'm just being picky due to my dislike of frames ;)
Oh I see :D I used to use frames all the time, but I've gotten into CSS a lot more and don't bother with them, as you can create pretty much the same effect. It would be a lot easier if IE supported position:fixed also. :mad:
Do all browsers support CSS padding? It only worked in IE for me, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
Use this:Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Do all browsers support CSS padding? It only worked in IE for me, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
padding-top: 0px;
padding-right: 0px;
padding-left: 0px;
padding-bottom: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-left: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
That's not what I want to do? :confused:
Or you can compact them to:
padding:0px;
margin:0px;
:D You can supply upto 4 attributes for those two also, clock wise from top, and you can leave any of them out and they will take the opposite side's value.
Oh yeah I forgot to answer you post Hobo :D I think IE is buggy with padding, and margin sometimes works better (although gives a different effect). Padding should be supported in all CSS compilent browsers.
Hmm...what I was doing looked right in IE but in Opera and Netscape, it ignored it completely. I'll give it another try later.
its better to define each side individually as I did earlier, most browsers read that much better than just padding:0px
Quote:
Originally posted by The Hobo
Hmm...what I was doing looked right in IE but in Opera and Netscape, it ignored it completely. I'll give it another try later.
Your padding? Are you specifying a unit (px, em, etc) - if you leave that off CSS-compliant browsers are supposed to ignore it instead of guessing that you mean px like IE does.
I was using px. Such as:
padding: 2px;
padding-left: 4px;
Some browsers do not allow the use of both padding and (padding-left or padding-right or padding-top or padding-bottom) in the same CSS id/class. IE will allow it but im willing to bet NS and Opera do not.
-Matt
I've already found alternate methods to fix it anyways.