Usamah al-Amin wrote: > Browsers usually miss downloading images, due to some network issues.
"Usually" is a strong word, but I guess you are referring to some particular browsing conditions. > But I've never come to see browsers miss interpreting CSS > declarations. Is that, technically speaking, possible? It surely is. Check the CSS Caveats: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/css-caveats.html Maybe I should add a caveat which is very important though self-evident to experienced authors: Browsers may ignore CSS constructs that violate CSS syntax, and they _must_ do so according to certain rules. Even a tiny typo can be essential. > The most > obvious example in my head is CSS background colors. Lets say this CSS > style rule is declared on a web page: > > body { > background: #dedede url(header.jpg) no-repeat top center; > } Is there a URL for a page that has such a rule and fails to render the background color? > It could very possibly to miss downloading the header image, but could > it possible to miss applying the background color (#dedede) for some > odd reason? Well, the background setting could be overriden by some other style sheet, or it might have no visible effect if everything in <body> is inside an element with a background color of its own, etc. But I don't think a browser could just casually fail to render the background color for a reason comparable to failure to use background image because it is not available due to network congestion, for example. If the style sheet is external, the browser might fail to get it _at all_. Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
