- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:17:15 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Le 21/03/2012 00:31, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> /**
>> > * Gravatar without<img> tag
>> > *
>> > * @memo
>> > https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/36d07341931078d5125fa99397a34ed8?s=140&d=https://a248.e.akamai.net/assets.github.com%2Fimages%2Fgravatars%2Fgravatar-140.png
>> > *
>> > * @todo make this doable with a javascript
>> > * @link
>> > http://darcyclarke.me/development/quick-tip-get-gravatar-images-from-emails-with-javascript/
>> > */
>> >
>> > [data-gravatar-uri]::after
>> > {
>> > content: url(attr(data-gravatar-uri)); /* impossible */
>> > }
>> >
>> > [data-email-md5]::after
>> > {
>> > content: url("http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/" attr(data-email-md5)
>> > "?s=100"); /* more impossible */
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> > [data-email-md5][data-gravatar-size]::after
>> > {
>> > content: url("http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/" attr(data-email-md5) "?s="
>> > attr(data-gravatar-size) ); /* more& more impossible */
>> > }
> I support the use-case, but I dunno how to accomplish it. url() is
> pretty much ruined; the fact that we didn't require it to contain a
> quoted string originally pretty much prevents us from doing anything
> useful inside of it.
Wouldn’t image() work at least for the first case?
Some spec change / new feature would be needed for the two other cases,
but image() seems to have better chances than url() (which is parsed as
a single token to allow omitting quotes)
--
Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 08:17:55 UTC