Rich Shepard wrote: > So, it's more a function of the color depth than being PNG rather > than JPEG format? That's interesting. > > I just replaced the .png files with .jpg ones and asked a friend to > see if it looks better that way. > > Many thanks for your lesson!
You've learned the wrong lesson, I think :-) It is *not* a function of color-depth, but the transparent bit/layer in an 8 bit png, or ordinary gif, that is understood and handled correctly - even by IE. After all, those images are square - regardless of what they look like, and the transparent bit/layer is simply on or off for an 8 bit png or gif. The 32 bit png you are using originally has a graded transparency that IE doesn't understand. A jpg has no transparency, so it will cover up the background just like before. This is what you can do with 8 bit pngs with a single transparent bit/layer... <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_05.html> ...and that's usually good enough for comfort - even in IE. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ 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/
