- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:36:50 +0000 (UTC)
- To: staffan.mahlen@comhem.se
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 staffan.mahlen@comhem.se 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 Of which one considers it a bug... > (and when testing Mozilla the behavior differs when supplied a size in > which case it also seems to be kept as replaced). You need to test in standards mode. > 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. I don't understand what you mean by saying the HTML <object> element is an alternative to the CSS solution. The two are at two completely different levels. It's like saying HTTP is a better alternative to HTML. > > > 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. What? I wrote: >> It's not a document fragment, it's just a list of CSS boxes, like in >> CSS2. There is no nesting allowed, no formatting allowed. It's just a >> list of text strings mixed in with replaced elements. By "replaced elements" I merely meant it in a generic way, as in: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#replaced-element ...but applying to any generated box. I didn't mean to imply anything about the DOM. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:36:51 UTC