Y'all are missing a very important point: images will never, ever have
an underline if you set text-decoration: underline.
Actually, I take that back. There is only one instance in which an
image might have a true underline. In the very unlikely event that
someone produces a bit of code that looks like this:
<a href="somelink.html">Some text <img src="imgsrc.ext"/></a>
You will end up with an underline running from "Some" to the end of
the image. This is, of course, assuming you haven't monkeyed with the
basic link styles already.
Now, some browsers will put a border on an image link. Firefox does.
Safari doesn't. I'll bet a few more do or don't. By default it'll have
a width of 2px (in Firefox anyway). So the only thing you have to
worry about in terms of default styles on image links is the border.
Unless you've added a border to anchors. Maybe you wanted a different
color than the text. Maybe you wanted a nifty dotted or dashed border.
Now you have a border applied to the link itself rather than the image
and there's very little you can do to get rid of it without adding
extra markup.
The number of folks who have commented that img a doesn't make a bit
of sense are absolutely correct. The only correct way to touch this
image by css is a img, but that only targets the image itself, which
means all you can do is muck about the the border on the image—the
border that may or may not show up in your browser in the first place.
So, I suspect Dean has a style that looks something like a {
border-bottom: 1px solid #000; } and he doesn't want that on his
images.
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
