W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [css3-content] "content" property, replaced elements, and width

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:56:06 +0200
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vchvrsnn64w2qv@annevk-t60>
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
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