W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2004

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:34:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404121320270.27215@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> What's wrong with
> <h1><img alt="XYZ Company" title=
> "XYZ Company logo, designed by S. Alva d'Ordali"
> src="xyzcompany-logo"></h1>
> apart from the obvious (i.e., that we should really use
> <object>, if only it were reasonably defined and decently implemented)?

You can't use alternate stylesheets with that (you might have a different
logo for each style -- same actual logo, different colour, for instance).


> Maybe, but the content: url(...) thing is really a brute force method,
> and it evitably opens a wide range of possibilities of creating
> confusion. As a general tool, it crosses the line between styling
> content and changing content.

You can already do that with generated content.

Look through the various stylesheets of the CSS Zen Garden, such as:

   http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/091/091.css&page=0

The idea of many things in the replaced content module is to reduce the
number of <div> and <span> elements and the number of hacks (such as
abusing text-indent) required for getting those effects.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 09:34:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:28 GMT