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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: staffan.mahlen@comhem.se
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404131628060.30867@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 staffan.mahlen@comhem.se wrote:
>
> Should really
> span {border-style: solid; content: "Logo: " url(xyzcompany-logo)}
> flow the border through the image of its content-property while it should
> not if the content property only held the image?

IMHO, it should be the same as:

   <span>Logo: <img src="xyzcompany-logo"></span>

...vs:

   <span><img src="xyzcompany-logo"></span>

...except that in the latter case, I don't understand why you would _not_
want to be able to control the size of the image and put the border
around it. It's one of the main things people have told be they don't like
about CSS2 generated content -- the following:

   :after { content: url(100x100.png); height: 50px; width: 50px; }

...results in a 100x100 image, not a 50x50 image.

I'm very surprised by the comments I've seen in this thread that are
asking for the following:

   h1 { content: url(fancy-header); height: 2em; border: solid; }

...to render the border 2em high, but the fancy-header image at its native
resolution.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 13:26:54 GMT

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