|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/16/32 11:56
In article <Xns9829188A3CF7Fhttpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:
> To further the education of mankind, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> vouchsafed:
>
> > Is there any trouble or downside in using a div for the sole
> > purpose of containing a background image, eg. a decorative
> > horizontal strip, not very high, 50px at most. If the height is
> > css'd at 50px and the pic is naturally 50px high, is it kosher to
> > leave out not only width, (a div being 100% by default), but also
> > repeat instructions. My tests work as I want.... but if there are
> > downsides, I would like to know about them.
>
> Under some conditions, IE 6 has trouble with divs for which a width is not
> specified.
What about the specific condition of a div that has nothing at
all in it, is a child of the body that has no size specs and is
css'd to have a background image, be 50px high and margined left
1%. Shall I add width:100%?
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|