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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:02:22 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <407B2016.2070004@cc.jyu.fi>
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>




Ian Hickson / 2004-04-13 01:11:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> 
>>>>  h1 { content: "foo" }
>>>>  h1 { content: url(foo) }
>>
>>I think that for the second one, I would want h1 to be a block-level
>>element containing an anonymous inline-level replaced element
>>rendering the resource "foo" (I consider that as the closest match
>>possible to match the behavior for plain text). If the property is
>>called 'content' it should modify contents of the element, not the
>>element itself. I'd rather have "display: replaced" (or 'replace')
>>to say that the element should be removed from the flow and replaced
>>with all of its childs.
> 
> The only practical difference would be that you could no longer change the
> size of the image, and that a border on the image would no longer go
> around the image itself.

Yes, that would be the only practical difference. However, I think 
that all specs should target for perfect logic and logically it 
would make more sense to place the image in anonymous element if 
that's what happens with text too. I believe that it makes things 
easier with the still unknown CSS properties in the future.

We'll need a selector to access the anonymous elements in any case, 
considering how 'content' property seems to be working in the 
future. Therefore I don't see a problem with having to specify some 
properties for the generated content via that selector.

-- 
Mikko
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 12:46:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:29 GMT