- From: Justin Wood (Callek) <116057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:16:04 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- CC: Bryce Fields <bryce.fields@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> Bryce Fields wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that this is probably a bad idea on many levels, but I
>> thought I'd float it out there anyway. You learn as much from
>> negative feedback as you do positive. So here goes.
>>
>> It has occured to me while researching the various image replacement
>> techniques, that it would be much simpler to implement IR if you could
>> just declare color:transparent. Then you wouldn't need extraneous
>> markup, no "off-left" positioning, etc. Text would not need to be
>> artificially manipulated to move it out of the way of the background
>> image.
>
>
> Although CSS3 allows this, as you find out in your follow-up e-mail,
> it is much more appropriate to use the 'content' property, as in:
>
> h1#contact{
> content:url("contact"),contents;
> }
>
> I believe Opera supports this in some way:
>
> h1#contact{
> content:url("contact");
> }
Of course this assumes that common UA's support it, where if they do
not, they would get |contents| only, which I assume is not a real bad
(its non-breaking) solution, though Mozilla (iirc) and IE do not support
the content property on regular elements and only on ::before,::after
type selectors.
~Justin Wood (Callek)
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 20:16:53 UTC