W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: [css3-images] [css3-gcpm] element() and element()

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:49:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCvQzJpGD_vrSk=kNj08VnU86Qcj+mG+KEDr6RY64DNQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mar 7, 2012 6:28 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2012 04:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think all of these are inferior to element() considering the
>> context, which is something like:
>>
>>   background: element(#tab);
>>
>> In the context of the background property, we know we're talking
>> about something to draw.  What's interesting is that the thing being
>> drawn is an element from the document.
>
>
> content: element(#something);
>
> Now what?

According to the current grammar for 'content', that would be parsed as an
<image>.

If we add to 'content' in the future, we'll need to explicitly handle any
conflicts

~TJ
On Mar 7, 2012 6:28 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 03/07/2012 04:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>
>>
>> I think all of these are inferior to element() considering the
>> context, which is something like:
>>
>>   background: element(#tab);
>>
>> In the context of the background property, we know we're talking
>> about something to draw.  What's interesting is that the thing being
>> drawn is an element from the document.
>>
>
> content: element(#something);
>
> Now what?
>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 07:49:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT