Reasonably restricting content: url()

This is a branch off of the "content: url() is bad" discussion... .

Although I agree "This could be abused" is no argument for getting rid of the feature, maybe this discussion should focus on some reasonable restrictions to the feature, rather than whether it should or should not be introduced.

For example: content: url() might be illegal (i.e., ignored) if the element it would replace has no original text in it (a sure sign that the entire page's contents are being written in CSS). Any conceivable reason for replacing no content?

It might also be codified in the spec, or at least recommended, that visual UA's (browsers) show a tooltip  containing the replaced content onmouseover, just like alt text for images. This is essentially how image replacement is used today anyway.

-Chris "SoopahMan" Moschini

Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 15:04:43 UTC