- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:37:54 +0000 (GMT)
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, fantasai wrote:
>
> 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?
I didn't say it would be different for real content.
foo { content: ""; display: block; }
...generates a block with one blank line box.
Or did you mean something else?
> > > 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'?
Because I didn't win the argument to call it 'auto'. :-)
> And why is 'contents' a separate value?
Because ::before can contain 'contents' (if the element itself doesn't).
We need something like this for footnotes. Look for the next version of
the paged media draft in the coming months.
--
Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL
"meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 18:37:55 UTC