RE: Generated content via URI

Wouldn't it be better to simply allow HTML for the content property? And,
why isn't the behavior of "url()" better defined to determine what would
happen if you link to non-image content?
 
Rainer Åhlfors

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Bert Bos
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:18 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: Generated content via URI


Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie> wrote on Sun, 31 Dec 2006:

> What is the rationale behind the change in the 2.1 April 2006 draft
> that a UA is no longer required to ignore a URI resource if it cannot
> display it?
> 
> Opera currently replaces an image inserted via a CSS generated content
> method with the text "image" when automatic image display is disabled.
> I find this behaviour most annoying.

First, what a UA means by "automatic image display disabled" is not for 
CSS to define.

Second, about the text in the spec: although the WG thought that in most 
cases it was preferable to display nothing instead of an image that 
failed to download, there were people who believed there exist document 
formats that rely on images being displayed (no ALT text, e.g.) and in 
that case it would be safer to warn the user of a failure.

In CSS3, we plan to extend the 'content' property to a comma-separated 
list, so that the style sheet writer controls the fallback, e.g.: 
'content: url(danger.png), "Danger!"'. But that's not for CSS2.

I hope this explains the rationale.



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 18:51:26 UTC