- From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:56:02 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, www-style@w3.org
On 13 Apr 2004 at 17:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
> I'm very surprised by the comments I've seen in this thread that are
> asking for the following:
>
> h1 { content: url(fancy-header); height: 2em; border: solid; }
>
> ...to render the border 2em high, but the fancy-header image at its native
> resolution.
I see your point, but i fear that if that is taken to far it seems
like a bit of a slippery slope to a meta-css language (i may well be
wrong about that though).
However, my preference was to allow the above to "work". If you
stated that all elements with a content value were to be considered
replaced, what would break? When the author uses a combination of
text and imagas and tries to scale it at the same time, it might be
ok with a UA dependant resolution since it such an edge case. Using
:before/:after nested with content values that themselves are somehow
similar to document tree children does seem like a bit of an overkill
to me.
I really would hate the suggestion that we need a new selector for
selecting parts of a content value...(oops to late).
/Staffan
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:56:43 UTC