- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 08:05:07 -0700
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Saturday 2010-05-08 23:25 +1200, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > CSS 2.1 was not at all clear on how this should work. The current > > behavior, though, is almost certainly *not* what we want when > > 'content' applies to all elements. What are the feelings of > > implementors on the possibility of changing the behavior here? > > > > Not hard to fix in Gecko. It does seem like a weird special case though. The motiviation for the special case was the extension of 'content' to work on elements rather than just pseudo-elements. It is needed to make that extension do what authors want. That extension, plus this special case, plus the extended attr() function, allows 'content' to describe the presentation of a bunch of standard replaced elements in HTML (and other languages). That is, with this extension, an image element is just displayed using the rule: img { content: attr(src, url); } -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Saturday, 8 May 2010 15:05:40 UTC