- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:32:50 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- cc: www-style@w3.org
> Seems like it, but then there's
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/generate.html#content :
Exactly. I'm still trying to figure out how this is possibly supposed to
work.... Specifically,
div { border: 1px solid red }
div:before { content: "aaa" }
img { border: 1px solid red }
img:before { content: "bbb" }
It's very clear that "aaa" should be _inside_ the red box. It _seems_
like the intent is that "bbb" should be _outside_ the red box. Is that
right? If so, why the odd discrepancy. If not, then what about the
<img> tag's background? How should should that be painted? Is the
principal box of the image in this case an inline box containing the
text and the actual replaced inline box? Should "width" apply to this
principal box or to the replaced inline?
The whole thing needs some serious thinking to not be self-contradictory.
> which implies that it *is* possible.
To me it merely implies that we have a strong discrepancy between the
normative and informative language here....
> Of course, this results in strange problems when trying to apply
> 'width' and 'vertical-align' to the image. It's not a well-defined
> situation.
Wholeheartedly agreed. I think we should make an effort to define it
for CSS 2.1.
Boris
--
Washington [D.C.] is a city of Southern efficiency and
Northern charm.
-- John F. Kennedy
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 14:32:52 UTC