> So, why AREN'T css background images content? (or why are they, if > you're so inclined).
As they are background. Simple as that. If you want an image as _content_ then you should use an img element with a proper alternative text. This will make it available to visitors without CSS and to visitors without images (as the alternative text kicks in). Most image replacement techniques fail the CSS on / images off scenario. That being said, I had situations where I used transparent GIFs as the image with the proper alternative text and used a CSS background, as I needed the image to be flexible width without being resized (a background image that showed more or less depending on the width of the header element). I was lucky that the CMS in question - tridion - does not use a WYSIWYG editor, but a form for each section / part of the page. Image replacement is what it says on the tin: A replacement/substitute technique, and not the real thing. By using real images you also allow editors to replace and edit them. -- Chris Heilmann Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com Writing: http://icant.co.uk/ Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
