content: url() is bad

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