- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:48:29 +0100
- To: achuter@technosite.es, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
- Cc: adamconnors@google.com
On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:25:53 +0100, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote: > That was my understanding. But I have to apologise for commenting > without doing enough research first. Sprites should be used, I believe, > with replacement techniques (see Dave Shea's blog [1] for a survey of > them). In that case the image is an alternative to the text. If CSS does > not work for any reason, the text is displayed (as long as the whole > sprite image isn't then filling up the window). so maybe this isn't the > case after all. Maybe a terminology problem. I understood sprites to mean small graphics combined together into one file - so a bullet for a link and a different coloured bullet for a hovered link would not be two separate tiny gifs that need to be fetched over http, but they'd be side-by-side in an image and then positioned by css to show one or the other. In such a case, CSS is correctly used as the image is decorative so their is no requirement for a textual equivalent.
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 13:49:29 UTC