I'm quite sure that FF does not load elements that are set to display:none;
I played around with a css-image-preloader some time ago & made that experience. And I believe it to be a smart thing to do of FF, because it safes bandwidth. Craig Cook schrieb: >>>> Does an element hidden with css load? > >>> Yes. > >> That may be a "perhaps." If "hiding" means "visibility: hidden" I believe >> you are correct. But if Christy means "display: none" then I do know some >> browsers do not download the image. I don't recall which browsers, >> though. Sorry. > > > If "element" refers to an element in (X)HTML, it will indeed load and > you'll see it in the rendered source, even if its display is set to > none. CSS doesn't command the existence of an element, merely its > presentation. > > But it's an interesting question of whether background images in CSS > are downloaded when the rule also includes a "display:none" property. > I would assume yes, but it would depend on browser implementation and > the order in which the properties are rendered. It might be the case > that if "display:none" comes before "background-image", some browsers > wouldn't request the image file, but I would be surprised and annoyed > by any desktop browser that behaved this way. It would mean > display:none is being interpreted as "stop reading at this point and > continue to the next rule" which is just plain wrong. > > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
