W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2000

Re: Way to Represent <img> Behaviour in CSS

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:47:06 -0000
Message-ID: <00c301c054bd$1cce2d00$7bed93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, <www-style@w3.org>
> Yes, this is allowed by the CSS3 UI draft [1], specifically, the
extensions
> to the content property [2]. Note in particular "Applies to: all
elements".

Aha! I couldn't find it before because the CSS3 Roadmap document [1]
specifies the content module as being an entity on its own. Will it
eventually have it's own module, or is it destined to stay in the UI Draft?
If so, I think the roadmap needs a bit of updating!

> Also note "Appendix A. Additions to the Base Style Sheet for HTML4" [3],
> specifically the rule:
> input[type=image]
> { content: url(attr(src)); [...]

How will you be able to assert that it is legal to put attr(X) into the
<uri> property value? Won't that mean a radical re-definition of the <uri>
property value: or will it be a local pv model for "content" only?
It's great that this will be allowed, BTW (and I noticed you authored the
document!).

> -- (not so) Random fortune
> "X-Mailer: Matthew Mail" (hey, it was in the header)
> - when you absolutely, positively want to be sure it arrives. five times.
;)

!

I'm actually subscribed on two email addresses (one is a bit off sometimes),
so I got a total of ten letters! Then I realized they were all the same...

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-roadmap

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 14:48:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:06 GMT