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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:56:02 +0200
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <407C53E2.30143.1336329@localhost>

On 13 Apr 2004 at 17:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

I see your point, but i fear that if that is taken to far it seems 
like a bit of a slippery slope to a meta-css language (i may well be 
wrong about that though). 

However, my preference was to allow the above to "work". If you 
stated that all elements with a content value were to be considered 
replaced, what would break? When the author uses a combination of 
text and imagas and tries to scale it at the same time, it might be 
ok with a UA dependant resolution since it such an edge case. Using 
:before/:after nested with content values that themselves are somehow 
similar to document tree children does seem like a bit of an overkill 
to me.

I really would hate the suggestion that we need a new selector for 
selecting parts of a content value...(oops to late). 

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:12 UTC