- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:58:12 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> How about actually putting it all on one property, like this: >> >> 'content' >> Values: [ <uri> [ ',' <uri> ]+ '/' ]? [ <content-list> [ ',' >> <content-list> ]+ | normal > > > So the semantics are "stuff before '/' replaces, stuff after '/' becomes > kids"? I'd go with a pipe instead -- slash very often has higher precedence than a comma, and reversing it here makes it harder for me to parse. The syntax doesn't see very obvious to me. If I'm reading the code, there's no way I'd guess putting something before a slash (or pipe) gives it replaced-element treatment. The punctuation just indicates this *or*that. For lack of any better ideas atm, I'm suggesting brackets, since they at least have some visual-mnemonic effect (a box) and seem to act on the replacement value rather than the whole-property syntax. content: [ url(image.png) ], "text"; /* does replacement */ content: url(image.png), "text"; /* does insertion */ > and this incidentally _forces_ me to include a fallback of > some sort for the replacement URL? There are other ways of forcing a fallback. content: [<content-list-including-uris>, ]* <content-list-minus-uris> I'd rather do it that way, because then you can force a fallback that has *no* uri-referenced resources. (The slash method just requires a non-replaced fallback.) BTW, wrt Anne's comments, the implicit fallback should be the initial value, not 'contents'. ~fantasai -- http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/contact
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 00:02:38 UTC