content: url() is bad

• From: Sean M. Hall <pianoman@reno.com>
• Date: 12 Apr 2004 00:10:35 +0000
• To: www-style@w3.org
• Message-ID: <C02B6CC1_521C_4FB6_994E_76C6116A349C@webmail.loadmail.load.com>

I have never liked that in CSS you could do something like:
element {
content: url(image.gif);
}
By doing this CSS is leaving its territory and inserting an image into a document--that's HTML's job. Regular content is ok, but inserting images is a HTML or Javascript job.
This is my opinion, and I want the CSS WG to consider this.

Received on Sunday, 11 April 2004 20:11:14 UTC