- 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