W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Generated content via URI

From: Spartanicus <mk98762@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:38:20 +0100
Message-ID: <n2m-g.78c7239jrlprcsc5nfup539pf7k6le1iiv@4ax.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:

>The CSS WG agreed with my reply[2] to Spartanicus's comment[1] about 
>ignoring vs flagging an image that fails to download. Thus, the CSS 
>level 2 spec is unchanged and still allows the UA to decide whether to 
>ignore or flag the missing image (but we expect an enhancement to the 
>'content' property in CSS3 that lets the author decide).
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Dec/0086.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Feb/0105.html
>
>Spartanicus, should we note in the forthcoming "Disposition of comments" 
>that you disagree with this resolution, based on [3]? Or can you in 
>fact accept it?
>
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Feb/0108.html

I initially inquired about the rationale behind this being changed in
one of the 2.1 drafts. The response provided a reason:

>there were people who believed there exist document formats that rely on
>images being displayed (no ALT text, e.g.) and in that case it would be
>safer to warn the user of a failure."

I'd like to see descriptions or preferably examples and usage stats of
such "exist[ing] document formats that rely on [CSS generated content]
images being displayed" before I can form an opinion on whether this is
an actual problem, and if so if it outweighs the problem which I
described. 

Based on another part of your response I raised an additional concern
regarding the proposed enhancement of the "content" property in CSS3,
how it potentially encourages authors to abuse CSS to provide a function
that IMO should be provided by the markup instead. There has not yet
been a response to this concern.

Specifically I'd like to learn why the WG feels that it is appropriate
to code content images (as opposed to decorative images) via the CSS
generated content mechanism. (I'm assuming that the WG thinks this is
appropriate since it is the only justification I can come up with to
explain this new feature).

-- 
Spartanicus
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:19:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:50 GMT