- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:25:50 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> Le 21/03/2012 00:31, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>>> > [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)
Yes, image() just takes a <url> or <string>, both of which attr() can return.
I agree that any feature that ends up doing this kind of string concat
would be better done in image(), because it doesn't have all the
horrible legacy parsing around it.
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 21:26:38 UTC