I had thought the same, but I remember that there was a reason for using this technique. ISTR that at least one browser didn't load images from the server when attached to a parent whose display is none. I wouldn't stake my life on this being true, as something else may have been causing that behaviour, but there you go.
On Feb 11, 2:29 pm, lukehashj <bobwazn...@gmail.com> wrote: > You don't necessarily even need the image to be hidden off screen in > that way. > > You could always just set it's display:none and have it exist anywhere > on the DOM - the user won't see it but the browser will still go to > fetch the image. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
