- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:14:51 -0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:01 AM, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:37:10 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > >> My preference is the first option. >> >> We could also replace this sentence in section 8 (Replaced content): >> >> # If the computed value of the part of the ¡®content¡¯ property that >> # ends up being used is a single URI, then the element or >> # pseudo-element is a replaced element. >> >> with: >> >> # If the part of the ¡®content¡¯ property that ends up being used >> # precedes a comma (i.e., it has additional fallback after it), >> # then the element or pseudo-element is a replaced element. >> > > This wording is much clearer, so we should use this if we keep the specified > behavior. I just worry that it may be surprising to authors that adding a > fallback after an image would cause the image to be sized differently. Me too. And displayed differently, like an inline-block instead of whatever it was before (e.g. a block), right?
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 19:15:31 UTC