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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Dave Shea <dave@mezzoblue.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:06:19 -0700
Message-ID: <407ACC8B.9090904@mezzoblue.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

>> 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).

What about allowing page author choice between this, and all-or-nothing? 
That is, all generated content within a series must exist, or nothing is 
rendered. I could potentially see practical applications for both ways.

My general view is that when a choice like this exists, make both 
options available to the author -- consider the box model a solid 
example of where choice was necessary.

d.
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 13:06:45 GMT

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