Re: content: url() is bad

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

Makes sense to me.

> ...but when would you ever want a single image on its own _not_ to be a
> replaced element?

   h1 { content: "foo" }
   h1 { content: url(foo) }

Should both be replaced elements?

If so, why does that make sense for |content: "foo"|?  If it does not, 
then why is it more important that it make sense for url(foo) than for 

If they should not both be replaced elements, why are we using the same 
property for two things that are conceptually totally different for 
authors and require two totally separate implementations?

> 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.

CSS2 content on before/after is rather underspecified, so I'm pretty 
sure that just about anything we do will be "compatible" (in that it 
should agree in all the "easy" cases).


Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 16:48:02 UTC