Re: content: url() is bad

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 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:

...but applying to any generated box. I didn't mean to imply anything
about the DOM.

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:36:51 UTC