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

CSS3 Genrated content, comments/questions

From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 11:59:42 +0200
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3F65A9AE.18716.AA6834@localhost>

Hi,

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/#nesting
Can it really be "cost effective" to have nested ::before/::after? It 
seems to me that constructing such elaborate content insertion 
structures makes for to much complexity for the added functionality. 
What does allowing nesting them buy?

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/#terminology
The terminology section has a comment, and to supply my spontaneous 
thoughts i think using the same terms as for the document tree may be 
missleading. If they really must be tree-like, i think using some 
other terminology than ancestor/parent/sibling etc could be useful. 
Something like precursor and/or forerunner perhaps if only upwards 
references are needed?

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/#inserting
Another thing that worried me was the example in which an anonymous 
table-cell was introduced by inserting a ::before content string on a 
table row (as a child of the row i think?). I did not undertand that 
this works the way inserting content into a regular block does, and i 
think complicating the table handing this way may be unnecessary. The 
content: property should probably only apply to table-cell displayed 
table elements, and work as if it was a block in this case, eg the 
contents appear inside the bounds of the cell.

Finally, what does the "margin areas" of the applies to fields of 
many properties in gencon refer to? This could perhaps be somewhat 
elaborated on in the rec (or did i miss some reference which explains 
it?). As an editorial thought, it may be helpful to have all applies 
to as links to their definition.

 /Staffan 
Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 05:59:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:23 GMT