On Jul 17, 10:58 am, Kirby <[email protected]> wrote: > > As for "broken", what you are refereing to is the facr that the > buttons at the top don't work in FF. That's because of a particular > coding choice that I deliberately made. IE quirks mode will let you > wrap an entire table cell inside an anchor, thuse making the entire > cell a hot spot, not just the text inside that cell. > > In other words, you can do this in IE and it works ( < = [, etc ): > > [a href="a.html"] [TD style="background:url(images/button.png);"] > This is a Link [/TD] [/a] > > In ie, clicking ANYWHERE in the entire cell will trigger the link. > > When I absolutely must support other browsers (I first discovered the > prob with Safari), I will wrap the inner text inside another anchor > with the same href. Ugly, but it works when I just HAVE to support > non-ie browsers.
Hahahaha!! THIS is what is keeping you from supporting standard browsers? There are so many ways you could solve this, it is not funny. You could: Use javascript: [td style="background:url(images/button.png);" onclick="location.href='a.html';"]This is a link[/td] Use a div inside the table cell with the button background: (even though this is a stupid solution, it allows you to have an anchor tag in there if that is what you're looking for) [td][a href="a.html"][div style="background-image: url(images/ button.png);width:<bgwidth>;height:<bgheight>;"]This is a link[/div][/ a][/td] I'm not even going to bother going into other solutions. You're using TD instead of td (another laughable faux pas of the late 90s) and you think wrapping a td in an anchor tag should work. I really son't feel like going into why that is wrong and should not work. > But when a corporate Intranet application's gotta be done fast, and > it's gotta be rock solid reliable.... Sorry. No browser warriors > allowed. It's IE all the way. I'd say this doesn't really matter. The solution to the problem you mentioned above can be divined in such a short amount of time that ignoring it out of the interest of speed is just ridiculous. I'm sure that corporations don't care much about non-IE compatibility, but it's moronic to code AGAINST compatibility in the name of speed and reliability, especially in simple cases like the one you presented, and then blame it on some other cause than your own ignorance. What you presented above is not "rock solid" nor "reliable". If MS ever did pull their heads out of their butts and broke backwards compatibility in IE, you'd have to fix that issue in the future to maintain IE compatibility, whereas a better solution wouldn't need to be bothered with later on. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
