- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:26:48 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: Dave Shea <dave@mezzoblue.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >> The current idea (not in any published spec) is that the first one would >> cause h1 to become a replaced element, and the other four would cause the >> contents of the h1 to be removed > > Um.. That's a pretty serious difference between the two renderings, no? Yes. In the last published draft, the syntax was such that you could specify a list of single <uri>s followed by a single "compound" entry. People want (apparently) to be able to do the fallback thing even with compound entries, though. A _really_ old proposal (we're talking like 1999 or something) that I had was to have content: replaced(foo.png); ...vs: content: url(foo.png); ...for deciding if it is a replaced image or not. Maybe a keyword would be better, as in: content: replaced url(foo.png), replaced url(foo.gif), "fo" url(o), "foo"; ...but when would you ever want a single image on its own _not_ to be a replaced element? It's the lack of such use cases that led me to the "it should be replaced if it is on its own" idea. > what if I want to create something a la <input type="file"> with this > setup, for example? XBL. > I'd want it to be a replaced element.... No, you'd want it to be an inline-block. A "replaced element" is something that has intrinsic dimensions and is by definition outside the scope of CSS. An IFRAME, basically. >> So when the first fails, it gets replaced by its contents, but for the >> the three there is no fallback so it just uses what it says. > > Again, that's a fairly major difference in behavior for things that are > called the same and should really act pretty similarly. Very > counterintuitive (forget a bit of a pain to implement). Agreed, which is why I responded to Anne's suggestion that 'contents' should always be a fallback -- the problem is, I just realised, that that is not compatible with CSS2 'content' on :before/:after. Maybe the fallback should be defined to only be added for elements, not :before/:after (since those never have any 'contents'). -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 16:26:50 UTC