|
-
May 29th, 2002, 05:23 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Frenzied Member
Are you asking if the img tag is going to be depreciated?
Travis, Kung Foo Journeyman
As always, RTFM.
WWW Standards: HTML 4.01, CSS Level 2, ECMA 262 Bindings to DOM Level 1, JavaScript 1.3 Guide and Reference
Perl: Learn Perl, Llama, Camel, Cookbook, Perl Monks, Perl Mongers, O'Reilly's Perl.com, ActiveState, CPAN, TPJ, and use Perl;
YBMS, but Mozilla doesn't.
-
May 29th, 2002, 05:23 PM
#2
I haven't heard that it will.
-
May 29th, 2002, 05:28 PM
#3
Stuck in the 80s
The only thing I can think of is like "background-image" ?? I don't think they'd deprecate that.
-
May 29th, 2002, 05:30 PM
#4
Frenzied Member
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Are you asking if the img tag is going to be depreciated?
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.
thanks
michael
I'm off to GalahTech, hope to see you there.
If you don't like the rules they make, refuse to play their game. -- Steve Ignorant.
-
May 29th, 2002, 05:36 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Frenzied Member
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.
Travis, Kung Foo Journeyman
As always, RTFM.
WWW Standards: HTML 4.01, CSS Level 2, ECMA 262 Bindings to DOM Level 1, JavaScript 1.3 Guide and Reference
Perl: Learn Perl, Llama, Camel, Cookbook, Perl Monks, Perl Mongers, O'Reilly's Perl.com, ActiveState, CPAN, TPJ, and use Perl;
YBMS, but Mozilla doesn't.
-
May 29th, 2002, 05:37 PM
#6
Fanatic Member
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
-
May 31st, 2002, 04:34 AM
#7
Frenzied Member
IFRAME is already deprecated isn't it? I'm pretty sure it's not part of the XHTML Strict DTD.
-
May 31st, 2002, 05:02 AM
#8
Fanatic Member
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.
-
May 31st, 2002, 05:25 AM
#9
Frenzied Member
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.
-
May 31st, 2002, 05:41 AM
#10
Fanatic Member
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
-
May 31st, 2002, 07:07 AM
#11
-
May 31st, 2002, 11:20 AM
#12
Stuck in the 80s
Do all browsers support CSS padding? It only worked in IE for me, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.
-
May 31st, 2002, 11:45 AM
#13
Fanatic Member
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.
Use this:
padding-top: 0px;
padding-right: 0px;
padding-left: 0px;
padding-bottom: 0px;
margin-top: 0px;
margin-right: 0px;
margin-left: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:20 PM
#14
Stuck in the 80s
That's not what I want to do?
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:21 PM
#15
Frenzied Member
Or you can compact them to:
padding:0px;
margin:0px;
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.
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:23 PM
#16
Frenzied Member
Oh yeah I forgot to answer you post Hobo 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.
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:28 PM
#17
Stuck in the 80s
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.
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:29 PM
#18
Fanatic Member
its better to define each side individually as I did earlier, most browsers read that much better than just padding:0px
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:33 PM
#19
Black Cat
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.
Josh
Get these: Mozilla Opera OpenBSD
I have books for sale: "MCSD in a Nutshell" and "VB Distributed Exam Cram" - PM me for details. Will also trade for a decent ATX Pentium 2 MB/CPU/RAM combo.
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:35 PM
#20
Stuck in the 80s
I was using px. Such as:
padding: 2px;
padding-left: 4px;
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:43 PM
#21
Fanatic Member
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
-
May 31st, 2002, 01:53 PM
#22
Stuck in the 80s
I've already found alternate methods to fix it anyways.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|