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

Re: content: url() is bad

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:20:23 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0404151119290.22246@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> So the semantics are "stuff before '/' replaces, stuff after '/' becomes
> kids"?  And if I just want an image inside my h1 I would do:
>
>    h1 { content: url(whatever) }
>
> and if I want it to replace I do:
>
>    h1 { content: url(whatever) / contents }
>
> and this incidentally _forces_ me to include a fallback of some sort for
> the replacement URL?

Yes.


> I kinda like it, actually.

I prefer it to having two properties. I'm not yet convinced I prefer it to
having "one <uri> means replaced, two keywords means not" though.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 07:20:51 GMT

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