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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:05:43 -0500
Message-ID: <407AB047.5040907@mit.edu>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Dave Shea <dave@mezzoblue.com>, www-style@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>   h1 { content: url(xyzcompany-logo); }
> 
> The current proposal, which I intend to make sure the spec states, is that
> if the image is not downloaded in the case above, the UA must
> automatically fallback to using whatever the element's contents were.

Compare:

h1 { content: url(xyzcompany-logo); }
h1 { content: "Logo: " url(xyzcompany-logo); }
h1 { content: "\160  " url(xyzcompany-logo); }
h1 { content: "\feff  " url(xyzcompany-logo); }
h1 { content: url(something) url(xyzcompany-logo); }

How would these all render if the company logo fails to load?  Is there 
a difference between various reasons for it failing to load (there 
really shouldn't be, I would hope).

-Boris
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 11:08:58 GMT

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