Paul Novitski wrote: > Re: > http://tjkdesign.com/articles/a_perfect_Image_Replacement_technique.asp > I wrote: >>> The most obvious disadvantage of using JavaScript to modify markup >>> is the inevitable delay: scripts of this nature wait till download >>> is complete before manipulating the DOM.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see Thierry's script > protecting you from unwanted images unless you disable JavaScript, > which is about like burning down your house just to turn off your > TV.* My understanding is that if a browser doesn't support images > then it simply displays the ALT text and doesn't bother downloading > the unusable image files themselves. Thierry's script downloads > images (creates image tags) if JavaScript is running, no mention of > whether the browser supports images. Paul, Forget *visual* browsers. What about the lowest level: no images no JS (the way Google sees our pages BTW)? With a Server-Side solution you *pollute* the document with meaningless/useless IMG elements. > One of the many clever aspects of Thierry's IR technique is that, in > the absence of client-side scripting, it falls back gracefully to the > plain text in the markup. If the images are inserted before download > instead of after download, the resultant markup is the same as it is > when JavaScript executes, but the server-side solution works > regardless of JS support in the client. As I said in my previous post. What markup? The image and the first character or the image only with the appropriate value for the "alt" attribute? Because another point to take into consideration is that in this case, the document would fail Checkpoint 2.1: http://www.hisoftware.com/cc/altquality.htm#a21 --- Regards, Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
