Problem with the top option is that neither is defining width/height. It should be an easy embed, width/height tags are pretty easy to do and the dimensions are always the same.
Without them, those of us with image placeholders on get something like this:
So IB's method is better across the board. (@IB, didn't see your tags in the code at first, rewrote this one but thought you'd still like to see it, I do prefer to see the specific icons for the site in question. Well, I prefer to see daleks, but that's different...)
When I started replying, I'd misread your code and thought that it also didn't define width/height, typed the thing then saw you had put them in, kicked myself and rewrote it, while on the phone to a client, hence the gibberish, sorry...
Nah, as I said, it's the exact same code the software generates, altered to either get rid of those closing tags caused by the ljuser style, or to remove the style altogether.
>_> Maybe one of use should recode the form to work better?
Without them, those of us with image placeholders on get something like this:
So IB's method is better across the board. (@IB, didn't see your tags in the code at first, rewrote this one but thought you'd still like to see it, I do prefer to see the specific icons for the site in question. Well, I prefer to see daleks, but that's different...)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Nah, as I said, it's the exact same code the software generates, altered to either get rid of those closing tags caused by the ljuser style, or to remove the style altogether.
>_> Maybe one of use should recode the form to work better?
Reply
Leave a comment