Re: content: url() is bad

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>> So the image in an <img> is not the element's contents?
> No.  It's what the element _is_.  The contents of an element are
> something the element is a box around.... but again, maybe that's just
> me.



   <img src="data:,test">

   <img alt="test">

I posit that all three have content, and that in the second case, the
content is not somehow the element more than in the other two cases.

>> Ah. I'm finding it difficult to understand why whether the content causes
>> height/width 'auto' to mean 'intrinsic' rather than 'fill' changes whether
>> it is content or not...
> There are other differences between replaced and non-replaced elements
> (for example, the handling of before/after may need to be different; see
> previous discussions we've had on that).  So it's not just width/height
> handling.

Yes, there are probably about half a dozen or so related differences.
Similarly there are changes if you float an element. That doesn't change
the content of the element though.

I certainly don't consider it enough of a difference to warrant a whole
new property to cascade and use.

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:37:30 UTC