- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:36:18 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:14:51 +0100, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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? I wonder if we should consider the parallel with css3-list image markers. Images markers introduced through @counter-style are specified to be rendered as inline replaced elements. However, unless I am reading the spec wrong, this is not the case for list-style-image. I think we should be consistent about all images inserted into content from css, have none of them behave as replaced content, and add a separate property to opt in the other behavior. - Florian
Received on Friday, 25 November 2011 15:36:50 UTC