- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:48:23 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 4/14/11 8:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > An image used as the sole value of 'content' should, imo, turn the > element itself into a replaced element, rather than just filling it > with an anonymous replaced element. This seems like magic voodoo. Should these two: 1) content: url(foo); 2) content: url(foo) ''; really render differently? The justification for that feels awfully thin. It feels like we're overloading existing syntax to do something new just because we think we can. On the other hand, not a single UA handles 'content' like that last I checked, so is it really desirable to define something that doesn't match reality? I agree that having a way to make a pseudo-element look like just an image might be useful, but I'm not convinced that 'content' is the right mechanism. -Boris
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 02:48:51 UTC