Re: content: url() is bad

Sean M. Hall wrote:
> By doing this CSS is leaving its territory and inserting an image
> into a document--that's HTML's job. Regular content is ok, but
> inserting images is a HTML or Javascript job.

How is this worse than list-style-image?  Or is it?

The initial idea was to allow inserting little decorative graphics 
before the content of an element (before the text of every heading, for 
example), just like list-style-image allows using an image as a list bullet.

Of course the generated content part of CSS has taken on a life of its 
own since then.... ;)

-Boris