Re: content: url() is bad

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Dave Shea wrote:
>>>
>>> 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).

That was what I was considering, the problem is in the details. Should a
lone url() always be a replaced element? Should text-followed-by-url be
allowed to fallback on a single url? Should text on its own be allowed to
have a fallback (which would always be ignored)? Should it always default
to fallback on 'contents' if there is a url in the last "serie"?


> What about allowing page author choice between this, and all-or-nothing?

Well, that will always be possible, since you could always say 'none' is
the fallback.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'