On Jul 17, 2:44 pm, Kirby <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > > OMG.... I can't believe it still doesn't get through to you. > > First. > > Compare: > > [td style="background:url(images/button.png);"] This is a link [/ > td] > > to this: > > [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 think enough said there.
Less code != better code. Plus you asked me to compare it to a block without a link, so congratulations there. > And, by the way.... you are aware that html is not case sensitive, > right? You're seriously going to bitch and gripe about a personal > preference? That's a real sign of a zealot/puritan, ya know. Heh, you're right. For some reason I was thinking of XHTML. Still, the browsers will interpret whatever they want. I have no reason to believe you would care if it was part of the standard, as long as IE read it correctly. > > What you presented above is not "rock solid" nor "reliable". > > You're just gonna start calling me a liar, now? The thing has run > without a hitch for YEARS, accomplishing everything I wanted done when > I wrote it. No, because you are assuming I'm talking about the reliability of the site, and I'm really talking about the reliability of the code. > > If MS ever did > > pull their heads out of their butts > > Ahhhh. Thats the rub. Now it all makes sense. You are simply one of > those "anti-microsoft" crusaders. NOW I finally see it from your > persective. Thanks. No, I think Microsoft is fine. I like that you're finding it fun to make wide-sweeping assumptions about me with so little statistical data. As a web developer, I know that Microsoft, through Internet Explorer, is single handedly holding back the progression of the web, and nothing would help progress web development more than every site on Earth breaking permanently in IE6 (specifically). > > you'd have to fix that issue in the future to maintain IE > > compatibility, > > Again, you are completely right. As I mentioned already, I think. A > redesign is inevitable for me now because IE8 is making in-roads right > smack in the midle of my stated demographic. > > NOW there's an economic reason to even tough the site. And my previous point was, if you had done it right the first time, you wouldn't have to bother now. I realize it's old code/old site, but it IS worth your time to spend one minute on upkeep every now and then (particularly if you're already messing with style changes) to make fixes to the code to protect you long-term. Now you've probably a much larger project to deal with. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
