On Dec 2, 8:52 am, EugeneZ <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought the current FB behavior with regards to <a> tags made > perfect sense, up until I read the bug report you link to. From a CSS > perspective, the current behavior is correct, it seems to me, as <a> > is by default a display:inline tag (like <span>). I kind of get why > some would be confused by this, but all the same, this isn't something > I learned from the spec. I actually believe I learned it from FB or > Dom inspector, saw the short <a> with a big <img> inside and said to > myself "well, that looks funny... but, say, that's what it would look > like if it was a <span>..." > > If someone had asked me if this was strange behavior, I would not > think so, but I can now see how someone could come to that conclusion. > > That said, I think it would *also* be useful to know the effective > area of the <a> contents.... though if I had a choice between that and > showing me the correct CSS behavior, I'll take the latter... accuracy > should be FB's priority.
Our current plan is to create a new "event target area" inspector function for Firebug 1.6 in conjunction with eventbug. The exact UI would need to be worked out, but for the example in the blog post and bug report, the image would be included in the event target area for the <a> tag. jjb > > On Nov 30, 1:07 pm, John J Barton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I learned a bit about <a> tags today, they inspect like span tags, not > > like a container > > thing:http://blog.getfirebug.com/2009/11/30/html-links-are-like-span-tags/ > > jjb > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug?hl=en.
