Re: Reasonably restricting content: url()

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Chris Moschini wrote:
> 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?

Almost all the examples I've given so far in this thread involve replacing
empty elements, e.g. the <img> case and the example at the bottom of:

> 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.

Note that (as far as I know) only one browser shows alt text for images in
a tooltip, and the others consider that a bug.

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

Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:38:58 UTC