Re: content: url() is bad

On 14 Apr 2004 at 16:59, Ian Hickson wrote:

> >
> > How do you make:
> > <img src="..">
> > 	<table>...
> > </img>
> >
> > work? Thats a rather fundamental difference to me. 
> This seems like quibbling. The images in the cases above have just plain
> text as replacement text. <img> handles that.

It might be quibbling, but I thought we just established that img 
does not act the way you want in two out of three tested current 
implementations (and when testing Mozilla the behavior differs when 
supplied a size in which case it also seems to be kept as replaced). 

Since HTML offers a better alternative than the proposed CSS solution 
i think the point was at least somewhat interesting when discussing 
modifying a rather fundamental CSS definition.

> > Was "replaced elements" a typo?
> No.

Then i suppose you do see CSS more or less creating elements in the 
document tree as parts of a value for a property. As you know by now 
i think that might be a misstake.


Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 15:22:39 UTC