- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:25:02 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote: > > I'll need to think about this in more detail. I think 'content:none' may > be made to force 'display' to 'none' for ':before' and ':after' (and > certain other CSS3 pseudo-elements) if it is set to 'inline'. > > (Note: 'none' and "" are not the same, and neither are the same as > 'display:none', if 'display' is set to 'block'.) I think you're making things much more complicated than necessary. Having the empty string generate an inline /if/ it's generated content but not real content is counterintuitive. Why do you want this distinction? > > If CSS3 extends 'content' to real elements, its initial value > > must be 'auto' (self), not 'none' (nothing). Therefore, the > > initial value of 'content' in CSS2 cannot be 'none'. > > The initial value will be 'normal', which for elements will compute to > 'contents' (the element's children). That's the current line of thinking, > anyway. Why 'normal'? 'default' carries as much meaning and doesn't presume to describe the content. And why is 'contents' a separate value? Curiously, fantasai
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 18:21:00 UTC