W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2002

Re: CSS2.1 Various Inline-related Stuff

From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:28:30 -0400
Message-ID: <3D74022E.9EFD1EE8@escape.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, fantasai wrote:
> >
> > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll need to think about this in more detail. I think 'content:none' may
> > > be made to force 'display' to 'none' for ':before' and ':after' (and
> > > certain other CSS3 pseudo-elements) if it is set to 'inline'.
> > >
> > > (Note: 'none' and "" are not the same, and neither are the same as
> > > 'display:none', if 'display' is set to 'block'.)
> >
> > I think you're making things much more complicated than necessary.
> > Having the empty string generate an inline /if/ it's generated
> > content but not real content is counterintuitive. Why do you want
> > this distinction?
> 
> I didn't say it would be different for real content.
> 
>    foo { content: ""; display: block; }
> 
> ...generates a block with one blank line box.
> 
> Or did you mean something else?

Yes, I meant the content in the document itself. (In
  foo { content: "c";}
"c" is still generated content.)

I know we've gone over this before, but you never told me *why*
this empty-string-generates-inline-box behavior is useful. I
think it's just confusing. 

> > > >   If CSS3 extends 'content' to real elements, its initial value
> > > >   must be 'auto' (self), not 'none' (nothing). Therefore, the
> > > >   initial value of 'content' in CSS2 cannot be 'none'.
> > >
> > > The initial value will be 'normal', which for elements will compute to
> > > 'contents' (the element's children). That's the current line of thinking,
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Why 'normal'?
> 
> Because I didn't win the argument to call it 'auto'. :-)

Pity. What were the reasons against?

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 20:24:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:16 GMT