Re: content: url() is bad

On 14 Apr 2004 at 14:41, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> staffan.mahlen@comhem.se wrote:
> > (and when testing Mozilla the behavior differs when 
> > supplied a size in which case it also seems to be kept as replaced). 
> 
> So you're testing CSS support in quirks mode?  Pretty bad idea in 
> general....  I recommend testing with some sort of relatively modern 
> doctype that will trigger standards mode in the relevant browsers.

Aha sorry, i didn't realise quirks could possibly affect something 
like this (is "replacedness" of broken images really a major 
backwards-compatibility issue?). So one out of three does what Ian 
suggests in standards mode only. That doesn't mean that the concept 
is wrong in any way, but might explain why i didn't expect the 
behavior.

 /Staffan

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 02:37:48 UTC