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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:14:51 -0800
Message-Id: <8E7401CA-7A77-4A0A-9384-E6072C32F73E@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:01 AM, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:37:10 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
>> My preference is the first option.
>> 
>> We could also replace this sentence in section 8 (Replaced content):
>> 
>>  # If the computed value of the part of the ¡®content¡¯ property that
>>  # ends up being used is a single URI, then the element or
>>  # pseudo-element is a replaced element.
>> 
>> with:
>> 
>>  # If the part of the ¡®content¡¯ property that ends up being used
>>  # precedes a comma (i.e., it has additional fallback after it),
>>  # then the element or pseudo-element is a replaced element.
>> 
> 
> This wording is much clearer, so we should use this if we keep the specified
> behavior. I just worry that it may be surprising to authors that adding a
> fallback after an image would cause the image to be sized differently.

Me too. And displayed differently, like an inline-block instead of whatever it was before (e.g. a block), right? 
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 19:15:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT