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

Re: Reasonably restricting content: url()

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
To: Chris Moschini <cmoschini@myrealbox.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404150136550.22246@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Chris Moschini wrote:
>
> Although I agree "This could be abused" is no argument for getting rid
> of the feature, maybe this discussion should focus on some reasonable
> restrictions to the feature, rather than whether it should or should not
> be introduced.
>
> For example: content: url() might be illegal (i.e., ignored) if the
> element it would replace has no original text in it (a sure sign that
> the entire page's contents are being written in CSS). Any conceivable
> reason for replacing no content?

Almost all the examples I've given so far in this thread involve replacing
empty elements, e.g. the <img> case and the example at the bottom of:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Apr/0167.html


> It might also be codified in the spec, or at least recommended, that
> visual UA's (browsers) show a tooltip containing the replaced content
> onmouseover, just like alt text for images. This is essentially how
> image replacement is used today anyway.

Note that (as far as I know) only one browser shows alt text for images in
a tooltip, and the others consider that a bug.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:38:58 GMT

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