[pic] and [img]

[Silent1]

Is there any reason [pic] is clickable and [img] isn't?

[RacingPete]

pic is the new img, but img is still there for backward compatability

The other thing is that img doesn't have a border (because it isnt clickable) and thus perfect for little smileys and inline graphics.

Other than that.

No

[dinkel]

I love the [thumb]-option . . .

[Pigeon]

RacingPete said:

The other thing is that img doesn't have a border (because it isnt clickable) and thus perfect for little smileys and inline graphics.

Interesting. In Opera neither has a border.

Pic tag

Img tag

[Slinky]

Pigeon said:

RacingPete said:

The other thing is that img doesn't have a border (because it isnt clickable) and thus perfect for little smileys and inline graphics.

Interesting. In Opera neither has a border.

Pic tag

Img tag

Or Firefox..

[Pigeon]

Hmm... (tries other browsers)

In firefox (iceweasel) the pic one looks the same as the img until I mouse over, upon which it gets a white background and an underline.

In internet exploder under wine they again look the same until I mouse over, upon which the pic one gets a dark blue background.

In konqueror it's the same as Opera, both the same, just the pic one is clickable.

[Silent1]

Opera does the white with blue underline if i highlight it.

[Clickpic] is another goodun too

[RacingPete]

You know sometimes, I swear, I make these things up

I was talking about the blue background on clickables, apart from that they look the same.

Edited by RacingPete on Monday 8th October 13:12