|
|
Posted by Nik Coughlin on 11/08/07 07:07
mbstevens wrote:
> Nik Coughlin wrote:
>
>> I believe that this is the minimum amount of markup necessary to
>> achieve this effect :) Would love to be proven wrong.
>>
>>
> Is the effect worth the internal complexity?
> Maybe it would be better to just spend more time in the Gimp
> perfecting normal images, keeping the page itself simple.
No amount of time spent in the Gimp will help me make an image that
stretches to fit the available width though!
> Forcing markup like this:
> <div class="hr"><div><div><hr></div></div></div>
> is just unsemantic, even though it is technically valid.
Well, for me, sometimes there are trade offs between getting a visual
effect, and being semantically correct. The extra div wrappers are to get
the visual effect (divider that fades away at the edges and resizes to fit
the available width), the <hr> is there so that there is still a horizontal
rule when CSS isn't present.
Some of these things are just necessary to address the shortcomings of
browser support for HTML/CSS -- almost all of these shortcomings are
addressed in CSS3. If IE/Opera/FF supported multiple background images on a
single element (Safari does) then it wouldn't be necessary.
How I wish it were so!
Thanks for your time :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|