- From: Yung-Fong Tang <ftang@netscape.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 15:59:44 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3E935460.3080500@netscape.com>
L. David Baron wrote: >On Thursday 2003-04-03 16:18 -0800, Yung-Fong Tang wrote: > > >>Simon Montagu wrote: >> >> >>>Yung-Fong Tang wrote: >>> >>> >>>>the questoin is >>>> >>>>in the :before or :after >>>>the URI point to a ".html" file instead of an image file. I don't >>>>think netscape7 will INSERT that html fragement into the before/after >>>>position, right? >>>> >>>> > >:before and :after are for *stylistic* generated content. I find it >highly unlikely that a file of type text/html would be stylistic, and >thus I think the specification should explicitly state that, for visual >media, the uri() values for generated content should only be used if the >resource at the URI is an image. > The problem is the CSS2 does not restirct to image only in the spec. Also, a example of .wav file actually is given in the CSS2 which make it not only limited to image. How about a flash file for icon? does that make sense? How about a small quicktime movie for icon? does that make sense? How about an MathML file as before or after? does that make sense? > This helps to enforce separation of >content and presentation and makes it clear that a feature that would >add significant complexity to implementations of 'content' is not >required. > I agree. One big problem is we can find the SIZE of image or .wav file. But there are no way to find the size for the .html. > >If CSS3 has a value for the content property that uses a URI that comes >from an attribute in the source document rather than from the >stylesheet, it might make sense to relax this restriction for such >values. > >-David > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 19:02:14 UTC