- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 19:52:05 +1000
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 09 May 2010 01:05:07 +1000, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
wrote:
> That is, with this
> extension, an image element is just displayed using the rule:
>
> img { content: attr(src, url); }
I used to think this was a pretty neat abstraction, but now I know more of
how <img> interacts with the DOM in terms of events and state exposed on
the HTMLImageElement object I wonder whether it is still useful to think
of <img> being implemented in the above way. I.e. if the HTML just says
<img>
and the CSS says
img { content:url(whee) }
I would not expect a load or error event to be dispatched, the
naturalWidth IDL attribute would return 0, etc.
Having said not creating anonymous boxes if not necessary would be
somewhat nicer, though note that
content:url(whee)
and
content:url(whee) "test"
will give widely different results as a consequence. (Not a huge problem
in my opinion.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 8 May 2010 17:53:04 UTC