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 18:41:23 +0200
Message-ID: <407AC6B3.8090702@annevankesteren.nl>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-style@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>

>>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); }

> Do you have a better proposal? I haven't fully thought this through yet.

I think that when image within a "serie" could not be found, the next 
"serie" (separated by commas) should be used. If none such serie exists, 
as with all the examples from Boris, "contents" should be used instead 
(as final fallback).


-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 12:42:02 GMT

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