On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:32 PM, John <j...@coffeeonmars.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Tom Livingston <tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The <a> is a stylable element independent of the img.
>
>
> OK..then would that mean that an empty a tag would have an underline?
>
> <a class=“has-border-bottom” href=“#”></a>
>
> ^^ this would produce the bottom border of some length, even tho nothing
> is between the a tags?
>
No because it's wrapping nothing. It's empty. Even if you gave it a width
and a height, it's won't show a text-decoration or border unless you put a
character in it. And, at least in FF, a space isn't even good enough to
make the decoration show. But that doesn't mean it's not a style-able
element.
>
> Or do you mean that, when something IS between the a tags, that the
> resulting bottom-border is on the a tag and not on what’s between the a
> tags?
>
Yes. In the case of <a href=""><img src="myimg.jpg" /></a> to remove
text-decoration, you add text-decoration: none; to the <a> not the <img>.
In the case of:
a img{border: none;}
This is actually valid in some cases as some email clients (and older
browsers maybe, I can't recall right now) will add a blue border around
images that are wrapped in an <a>. But that's different than what you
originally asked.
> Sorry..I’m getting a bit loopy here..trying to understand.
>
> Thank you!
>
> John
>
--
Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic |
ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.com
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
