- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 19:25:04 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Ian Hickson / 2003-07-04 14:52: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, James Craig wrote: > >>However, a :broken pseudo-class would be useful in styling an element >>different ways depending on whether or not the generated content is >>displayed. For example, I may want a width or border specified on the >>actual image, but not on it's text equivalent. > > > This requirement was originally on my list, but I had to drop it because I > couldn't work out any sane way to do it. > > You can't use a pseudo-class, because that makes the cascade dependent on > the layout, which is a definite no-no. I don't really understand the problem with :broken pseudo-class. How's that harder to implement than :hover? I think it could be possible to partially[1] emulate <object> behaviour with just :broken pseudo-class and the content property. Something along the lines: object { content: url(attr(data)); } object:broken { content: normal; } > You could use comma separated values for some properties, e.g. width, > height, overflow, margin: All the issues that I can think of with the pseudo-class method are minor compared to problems that could arise from such lists. [1] Obviously one cannot support child <param> elements correctly with CSS only emulation. -- Mikko
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 05:17:44 UTC