- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 22:04:58 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: | | On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, fantasai wrote: | > | | > | In the context of the extended content property, if you | > | have <div/> in your document, then: | > | | > | div { display: block; content: none; } | > | | > | ...is the same as <div/>, whereas | > | | > | div { display: block; content: ''; } | > | | > | ...is the same as <div><span/></div>. The first has an | > | intrinsic height of 0, whereas the second has an | > | intrinsic height equal to the line height (typically | > | 1.2em). | > | > Ah, then a string creates not only content, but an inline | > box around it as well. | | Yes, see | http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#anonymous Let me recapitulate. If we have "display: block" and "content: none", the model is <div/> (which is the same as <div></div>). If we have "display: block" and "content: ''", the model is <div><span/></div> Doesn't it strike you odd that by inserting the content of <div></div> with a stylesheet, I don't get the same rendering as by using the exact same string as its content in the markup? Anyways, to go on... | > So, what happens if the element in question is | > "display: inline"? | | If the element in question is an inline box, then I | believe the proposed value none should be | indistinguishable from the value ''. So you agree that by default, :before/:after exist as inline boxes. | | > | > Then how come a url causes two different results | > | > based on whether it's in the url() notation or the | > | > replaced() notation? | ... | > AFAICT, the url() notation takes a string and returns | > type URI, which is handled differently from type string. | | In the context of the 'content' property I imagine it | returning the type 'mixed context replaced content' | (i.e., it is replaced content but in the context of | mixed data: it can appear in the middle of text, and | doesn't directly replace the element itself). background-image takes type 'mixed content replaced content'?
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 22:05:50 UTC