- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Chris Moschini <cmoschini@myrealbox.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Apr/0167.html > 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 /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 21:38:58 UTC