Re: content: url() is bad

Perhaps I did a poor job of describing my issue with the "it's a 
replaced element or not" proposal... my problem is that it violates the 
principle of least surprise for authors.  This is a problem that CSS 
suffers from heavily in general -- predicting the rendering of anything 
but the most trivial CSS is pretty much impossibly without studying the 
spec for weeks first.

Again, I can't offer a better alternative.  But I disagree with the 
assertion made by Ian earlier in this thread that this is a usability 
win.  Anything that exhibits erratic (from an author's point of view) 
behavior is a usability loss.

-Boris