- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:16:34 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > 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. In my personal opinion, yes. > 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? Likely not, unfortunately. But I can suggest it, and see what the interest is in changing. > 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. I'm not sure there's a cleaner way, unless you just define another property which, when set, overrides 'content' and makes it a replaced element. That's kinda like the list-style-type/list-style-image distinction, though, where -type could have just accepted an image all along. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 16:17:21 UTC