- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:37:28 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
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. Compare: <p>test</p> <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 /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 11:37:30 UTC