- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 23:49:18 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCvQzJpGD_vrSk=kNj08VnU86Qcj+mG+KEDr6RY64DNQQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mar 7, 2012 6:28 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > > On 03/07/2012 04:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> >> I think all of these are inferior to element() considering the >> context, which is something like: >> >> background: element(#tab); >> >> In the context of the background property, we know we're talking >> about something to draw. What's interesting is that the thing being >> drawn is an element from the document. > > > content: element(#something); > > Now what? According to the current grammar for 'content', that would be parsed as an <image>. If we add to 'content' in the future, we'll need to explicitly handle any conflicts ~TJ On Mar 7, 2012 6:28 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 03/07/2012 04:24 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> >> I think all of these are inferior to element() considering the >> context, which is something like: >> >> background: element(#tab); >> >> In the context of the background property, we know we're talking >> about something to draw. What's interesting is that the thing being >> drawn is an element from the document. >> > > content: element(#something); > > Now what? > > ~fantasai > >
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 07:49:49 UTC