W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2003

Re: text/html in generated content (was Re: [Fwd: Re: CSS2 "Content"])

From: Yung-Fong Tang <ftang@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:59:44 -0700
Message-ID: <3E935460.3080500@netscape.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org

L. David Baron wrote:

>On Thursday 2003-04-03 16:18 -0800, Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>>Simon Montagu wrote:
>>>Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>>>>the questoin is
>>>>in the :before or :after
>>>>the URI point to a ".html" file instead of an image file. I don't 
>>>>think netscape7 will INSERT that html fragement into the before/after 
>>>>position, right?
>:before and :after are for *stylistic* generated content.  I find it
>highly unlikely that a file of type text/html would be stylistic, and
>thus I think the specification should explicitly state that, for visual
>media, the uri() values for generated content should only be used if the
>resource at the URI is an image.
The problem is the CSS2 does not restirct to image only in the spec. 
Also, a example of .wav file actually is given in the CSS2 which make it 
not only limited to image.

How about a flash file for icon? does that make sense?
How about a small quicktime movie for icon? does that make sense?
How about an MathML file as before or after? does that make sense?

>  This helps to enforce separation of
>content and presentation and makes it clear that a feature that would
>add significant complexity to implementations of 'content' is not
I agree. One big problem is we can find the SIZE of image or .wav file. 
But there are no way to find the size for the .html.

>If CSS3 has a value for the content property that uses a URI that comes
>from an attribute in the source document rather than from the
>stylesheet, it might make sense to relax this restriction for such
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 19:02:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:06 UTC