- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 11:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
- To: James Craig <work@cookiecrook.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, James Craig wrote:
>
> XML example:
>
> <myImage mySource="img/foo.gif" myAlt="foo" />
>
> myImage {
> display: image;
> text-alternative: attr(myAlt);
> source: attr(mySource);
> }
With the CSS3 Generated Content draft, that would be:
myImage { content: attr(mySource, url), attr(myAlt); }
> I thought of an issues that might arise. For example, should the source
> path be relative to the document or stylesheet? Since it's from the
> document, I would say document, but URL values from a stylesheet are
> usually evaluated to be relative to the stylesheet.
The form "attr(mySource, url)" will be resolved relative to the document.
> Should there be a mime-type spec in the CSS for these images?
>
> myImage[mySource$=".gif"] {
> mime-type: "image/gif";
> }
> myImage[mySource$=".png"] {
> mime-type: "image/png";
> }
I don't understand what this means.
> If this idea pans out, what kind of proposals might there be for
> displaying other kind of things that would typicially be held in HTML
> <object> elements?
Why do they need any special casing?
video { content: url(movie.mpeg); }
flash { content: url(game.swf); }
test { content: url(test.svg), url(test.html), url(test.mathml),
url(test.smil); }
Of course there's nothing stopping UAs right now from implementing:
body { background: url(test.swf); }
Cheers,
--
Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL
"meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 14:07:15 UTC