-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Picture borders
- Thread starter cheatpark
- Start date
Which Netscape? 
Btw, you can do it at least 5 ways with a table. But is it worth to continue to write cluttered code just to support an old and cranky browser? The CSS way doesn't work in NS4x, but they still see the pictures. They just don't get the candy.
Btw, you can do it at least 5 ways with a table. But is it worth to continue to write cluttered code just to support an old and cranky browser? The CSS way doesn't work in NS4x, but they still see the pictures. They just don't get the candy.
Last edited:
I would think the best, and by best I mean most compatible, table way would be:
Code:
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" bgcolor="_border_color_"><tr><td>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" bgcolor="_page_bg_color"><tr><td>
<a href="whatever.html"><img src="image.gif" border="0"></a>
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table>Would the fact that the only thing that is holding true standard support back is version4 browsers do? They don't miss any content. Just decoration.
Point is that one year from now a person that writes a font tag will be seen as anal retarded. I think one should still learn them and table layout too, but going through loops for an image border in NS4 when one is just starting to learn today is plain silly.
Have you ever thought about what you may screw up for for example blind users? I care a lot more about those than about a handful of old geezers that won't upgrade a graphical browser. They get the content. If they want fluff, fine. Upgrade and see a whole new world.
cheatpark - yes, a HTML border on a linked image takes the visited link color.
cheatpark - yes, a HTML border on a linked image takes the visited link color.
The problem isn't the CSS. It's the cluttered HTML.
But now it's about cheatpark's border. Cheatpark can't write a table yet (at least he couldn't yesterday - but he's moving fast).
Does he need to learn dirty tricks like wrapping a table around an image to get a detail like border color? I think he will have enough to do trying to understand the common practices with tables.
But now it's about cheatpark's border. Cheatpark can't write a table yet (at least he couldn't yesterday - but he's moving fast
).Does he need to learn dirty tricks like wrapping a table around an image to get a detail like border color? I think he will have enough to do trying to understand the common practices with tables.
Exactly. That's one of the reasons it's better they and others that don't care don't have to download the code at all.
FONT, besides being an ugly tag, results in the link color problem. Meaning no one get's the nice colors. How do you solve that? Hang a little CSS on the FONT tag? :tongue2:
FONT, besides being an ugly tag, results in the link color problem. Meaning no one get's the nice colors. How do you solve that? Hang a little CSS on the FONT tag? :tongue2:
Your argument is faulty, for they wont care to download your CSS either, not to mention your 33 character CSS is more of a download than my 29 character <font> tag. Again I say, I don't think the blind will really care and again I ask, what does this have to do with image border colors?
Your CSS prevents the link's color from changing as well, or did you not realize this?
Calling <font> an ugly tag! <Font> saw you through think and thin from HTML 3.2 to 4.0, and now you're so eager to turn your back on her! For shame!
No, browsers that don't understand CSS won't download it. Inlining CSS is good for learning purposes, or if one uses a single rule here and there, nothing else. Otherwise an external file is to prefer. Furthermore .css files, just as .js files, get cached so it also preserves bandwidth.
And if it's 10 images? Or 100? What does your math say then. Besides, wasn't font already discarded because of the link color thing? How many characters are the tables?
It has to do with tables used for layout purposes ---- up the way some readers get the text. And to use a table for something as unsignificant as the color of a picture border, all for the benefit of an old version of one browser is bloated.
What link colors? What link? I didn't write a link. cheatpark doesn't want the border to change which your font solution makes it do.
Sorry, but font has always been considered to be evil and a bad solution for numerous reasons. You may not believe this, but there are people that have been around since the beginning of the www and never written a font tag. Be happy that it's gone.
Meow, why are you still talking about tables? You're the only one who keeps bringing tables into the argument, neither I nor you suggested he do anything with tables. You said use CSS alone. I said use CSS in conjunction with a <font> tag. Period. No tables.
Browsers that don't support CSS won't download an external style sheet, this much is true, but the inline style you gave him, and remember we're talking about a person whose grasp on HTML is very slight and is likely to copy word for word what is explained to him (your words, mind you), and a browser that doesn't support CSS would download that. 10x33 is 330, 100x33 is 3300. 10x29 is 290, 100x29 is 2900.
What link colors? What do you think we're talking about? Cheatpark has an image that is a link. He wants to change the color of the border around the image to something other than the default blue. Furthermore, he wants it changed to brown when clicked. Both our methods work for the first part, but neither my <font> tag nor your CSS will allow for the second. You made a strange comment just then, "cheatpark doesn't want the border to change". Considering the topic of this thread, "Picture borders", and the first question asked in it, "how do I decide what colour the border is?", that is a strange comment of yours indeed.
I once gave you credit for the way you normally push for compatibility in threads that promote the IE-"standard", but the way you sneer at the only tool available to change font faces and sizes in many browsers, the <font> tag, makes me rethink my assessment. I say compatibility first, all else second. You, most apparently, think otherwise.
Browsers that don't support CSS won't download an external style sheet, this much is true, but the inline style you gave him, and remember we're talking about a person whose grasp on HTML is very slight and is likely to copy word for word what is explained to him (your words, mind you), and a browser that doesn't support CSS would download that. 10x33 is 330, 100x33 is 3300. 10x29 is 290, 100x29 is 2900.
What link colors? What do you think we're talking about? Cheatpark has an image that is a link. He wants to change the color of the border around the image to something other than the default blue. Furthermore, he wants it changed to brown when clicked. Both our methods work for the first part, but neither my <font> tag nor your CSS will allow for the second. You made a strange comment just then, "cheatpark doesn't want the border to change". Considering the topic of this thread, "Picture borders", and the first question asked in it, "how do I decide what colour the border is?", that is a strange comment of yours indeed.
I once gave you credit for the way you normally push for compatibility in threads that promote the IE-"standard", but the way you sneer at the only tool available to change font faces and sizes in many browsers, the <font> tag, makes me rethink my assessment. I say compatibility first, all else second. You, most apparently, think otherwise.
