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

Re: [css3-content] sizing of images inserted using the content property

From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:47:02 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v5erkoef4p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:29:00 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  

> On Monday 2011-11-21 08:19 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 11/21/11 7:44 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> >Section "8. Replaced content" says that when the content introduced by
>> >content: is a single url, then the element or pseudo element is a
>> >replaced element.
>> This happens to not be compatible with what the "content" property
>> does in CSS 2.1, for what it's worth....
> I think you're misinterpreting what it says, or at least what it
> intended to say (since I think there's a section missing... though
> I'm having a bit of trouble reading the spec due to the obsoletion
> notice).
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-content/#inserting-and-replacing-content-with-the
> describes the value of 'content' as:
>   [ [ <uri> | icon ] ‘,’ ]* [ normal | none | inhibit | <content-list> ]
> url() values can appear in two different places in this syntax:
> before a "," or inside of <content-list>.  When they appear before a
> "," they are treated as a replaced element (as the spec describes).
> When they appear inside of <content-list>, they are processed under
> the CSS 2.1 model and are not a replaced element.  (This bit is less
> clear because some of the subsections under <content-list> appear to
> be missing.)
> If 'content' contains a single url(), the only way to make the value
> fit the grammar is by making that url() part of the <content-list>
> production, in which case it is not treated as a replaced element.

Section 7 is inline with what you say, but section 8 still seems to suggest
something else to me. The "that ends up being used" wording is probably the
culprit. If it tries to say what you said, then the whole section 8 seems
unnecessary to me, as section 7 says that already.

If it means what I initially thought it means (content:url("foo.jpg") leads
to replaced content), then it breaks 2.1 behavior.

So I propose that we remove section 8 (or at least the first sentence) and

  * add a note that clarifies things along the line of what you
    just explained

  * change section 7 so that nothing ends up being a replaced element,
    and add some mechanism similar to what Tab proposed to make
    anything become a replaced element.

  - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 16:47:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:52 UTC