Hi Paul et al, Thanks that works a treat across both major browsers.. Following on from this, is there a way (that u can think of) that would prevent the icon becoming an orphan on a new line? It would visually look better if when wrapping to a new line that the icon forced the last word to be wrapped with it and not end all be its lonesome on the new line.
Any thoughts re this, much appreciated http://www.newgency.com/test/css_temp.htm cheers Jason ----------------------- Jason Bayly Newgency Pty Ltd http://www.newgency.com/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Novitski Sent: Thursday, 1 February 2007 7:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WSG] Creating link arrows/icons in css At 1/31/2007 10:15 AM, Dan Dorman wrote: >On 1/31/07, Paul Novitski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >><a href="#">This is a very very ... very long link<span></span></a> >[snipped] >><span></span> is deplorably extraneous in the markup, but at least >>it's semantically transparent. > >Since a background image in the parent <span> won't render properly in >IE, I'm not sure I understand why a superfluous empty <span> is >semantically superior to a superfluous <img> properly attributed. This page demonstrates that the background image will render properly in IE 6 as well as Firefox 2: http://juniperwebcraft.com/test/test_anchoricon.html I hear your argument and I can't really disagree with it. I don't think the empty span is superior. About the highest compliment I can pay it is that it's semantically neutral or transparent and thus causes no harm to the semantic content of the document. But is the link icon content or decor? That's usually how I decide whether to make images foreground or background. In this particular case I see the image as cosmetic dressing for the hyperlink and not a piece of content that's interesting or valuable unto itself. I imagine the image will be reported by a screen-reader (IFF it's got a non-blank alt?) but the span won't. I don't see a strong right or wrong way on this issue. Either way we're adding about the same amount of extra gunk to the markup merely to support an image that we really want to depend from the simple anchor markup itself. Regards, Paul __________________________ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
