Sent by David Dorward on 21 June 2004 12:12
On 21 Jun 2004, at 11:42, Chris Heilmann wrote:
>> Isn't usually a bad thing when the image contains content?
>
> And who says it should? Image replacement is there to replace a text
> if it
> is possible.
I'm having trouble thinking of a situation where anybody would want to
replace text with an image if the image did not contain content
equivalent to the text. Can you give me any examples?
> Also, maintaining
> images in a CSS is a lot easier than as an img (non-content images of
> course). When there is a redesign, slap in another CSS, voila, no need
> to
> replace all images on the server or change the markup.
Edit a template. Trigger the regenerate script. No more effort then
playing with CSS.
>> Where is the image replacement? There are presentational background
>> images there, but they appear to be decorative, or at least merely
>> supplemental to text.
>
> See above.
So you *are* just using decorative background images? You aren't
actually doing image replacement at all? May I draw your attention to
the subject line please?
--
David Dorward
<http://dorward.me.uk/>
<http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
