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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:16:34 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=nLTU8GyvxgvwhexqMNvyRV2Qk5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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.

In my personal opinion, yes.


> 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?

Likely not, unfortunately.  But I can suggest it, and see what the
interest is in changing.


> 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
> mechanism.

I'm not sure there's a cleaner way, unless you just define another
property which, when set, overrides 'content' and makes it a replaced
element.  That's kinda like the list-style-type/list-style-image
distinction, though, where -type could have just accepted an image all
along.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 16:17:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT