Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > To nitpick, though, by most definitions "perfect" can't be improved > upon, hence it can be perceived as a tad presumptuous to use it...
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perfect That's interesting. I think I could have used the exact same URL to make my point ;-) As I said, more than one solution can be perfect. To take the very first definition in that document: 1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type If we're talking about Image Replacement techniques, we're talking about a few challenges to take into consideration (mostly related to Accessibility). I think *any* technique that takes care of these challenges can be called a perfect technique** Anyway, that URL should not be taken too seriously, we all know that file names and titles "need" to be "catchy"... ;) --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** Now if there is one that also does not pollute the markup (with spans and stuff) and allows the graphic headings to be *printed* then may be this one could be called "the" perfect technique ;) ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
