- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 19:02:22 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Ian Hickson / 2004-04-13 01:11:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>
>>>> h1 { content: "foo" }
>>>> h1 { content: url(foo) }
>>
>>I think that for the second one, I would want h1 to be a block-level
>>element containing an anonymous inline-level replaced element
>>rendering the resource "foo" (I consider that as the closest match
>>possible to match the behavior for plain text). If the property is
>>called 'content' it should modify contents of the element, not the
>>element itself. I'd rather have "display: replaced" (or 'replace')
>>to say that the element should be removed from the flow and replaced
>>with all of its childs.
>
> The only practical difference would be that you could no longer change the
> size of the image, and that a border on the image would no longer go
> around the image itself.
Yes, that would be the only practical difference. However, I think
that all specs should target for perfect logic and logically it
would make more sense to place the image in anonymous element if
that's what happens with text too. I believe that it makes things
easier with the still unknown CSS properties in the future.
We'll need a selector to access the anonymous elements in any case,
considering how 'content' property seems to be working in the
future. Therefore I don't see a problem with having to specify some
properties for the generated content via that selector.
--
Mikko
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 12:46:04 UTC