W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3-images] gradient sizing for GC?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:48:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA7B1F7.3060308@mit.edu>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 4/14/11 8:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> An image used as the sole value of 'content' should, imo, turn the
> element itself into a replaced element, rather than just filling it
> with an anonymous replaced element.

This seems like magic voodoo.  Should these two:

  1) content: url(foo);
  2) content: url(foo) '';

really render differently?  The justification for that feels awfully thin.

It feels like we're overloading existing syntax to do something new just 
because we think we can.  On the other hand, not a single UA handles 
'content' like that last I checked, so is it really desirable to define 
something that doesn't match reality?

I agree that having a way to make a pseudo-element look like just an 
image might be useful, but I'm not convinced that 'content' is the right 

Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 02:48:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:45 UTC