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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Anne van Kesteren (fora) <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:37:00 +0200
Message-ID: <407AC5AC.6060007@annevankesteren.nl>
To: csant@csant.info, www-style@w3.org

>> how *would* this be more or less compatible with a screenreader?
> 
> content: url(1), url(2), url(3), "contents";
> 
> Where "contents" is the fallback text that is displayed if the URIs 
> fail  to be rendered.

That is the part that should be changed. Since people think that 
'content:url(img);' takes care of everything and in a way, that makes 
sense. The content could not "replaced" so the property "doesn't" apply.

I proposed in private e-mail that "contents" should last in the list and 
that "none" should be specified if one wants to have that effect.

According to what Ian told me, such an approach will be in the next WD. 
(He also posted it on this list as a reply to Dave Shea.)


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 12:37:24 GMT

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