On Mon, 10 May 2010 16:54:11 +0200, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > Le 08/05/10 11:52, Anne van Kesteren a écrit : >> 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 > > Yes, it is still useful. Big Corporate sites __need__ this. Why would they need <img> to be implemented in this way? I don't understand. Do you mean to say that the 'content' property is useful? I would agree with that and never said otherwise. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Monday, 10 May 2010 15:30:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:46 UTC