On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 2011, at 8:40 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >>> On 11/23/11 11:29 AM, L. David Baron wrote: >>>> If 'content' contains a single url(), the only way to make the value >>>> fit the grammar is by making that url() part of the<content-list> >>>> production, in which case it is not treated as a replaced element. >>> >>> Ah, ok. That makes sense, and seems backwards-compatible. Is that what >>> WebKit and Opera actually implement, though? >> >> Not WebKit. We currently make "div { content: url(foo); }" turn the >> div into a replaced element. > > So, that is the last (and only) item in the comma separated list, but instead of being a div containing an anonymous replaced inline element, the div itself is a replaced element? Is there an advantage to doing it that way? The main disadvantage is that we have a completely different behavior when you use that on pseudo-elements. ^_^ Boris has pointed out in the past that it means "content: url(foo);" and "content: '' url(foo);" have different behavior, which seems somewhat awkward. ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 17:04:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:06 UTC