- From: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:50:37 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <65307430901201150i106e13bej9663b627e02dd3e6@mail.gmail.com>
2009/1/20 Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> > Giovanni Campagna wrote: > >> Uhm... I probably misunderstood the spec: I always thought that >> ::before/::after introduced a new element at the same nesting level. >> > > You can test this with CSS2.1 implementations, for what it's worth. Some > borders on the element with ::before applied should show what's going on. > I tested (I should have done it before, sorry...) > > But how is this supposed to work when the ::before pseudo-element is >> actually outside the element itself (because the element is moved, like in >> footnotes)? >> > > I'm not sure what you mean here. How is this case different from, say, > absolute positioning? ::before works just fine with absolute positioning: > the before content is placed inside the positioned box. > That's what I mean: shouldn't the ::before be left in the normal float and the DOM content positioned (this is a behaviour I saw in many examples around the web, although never tested) > Generated Content Module says that initial for ::before/::after should >> > be inline, but that breaks > >> the example in the same spec, section 4.2 >> > > Er... why does it break that example, exactly? > > -Boris The example says that ::before applied a to a table-row elements creates a new table cell (display: table-cell), instead it creates a new inline box (to notice this fact, try adding and removing "display: table-cell;" to added content) Giovanni
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2009 19:51:15 UTC