- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:12:37 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > I would rather the behavior be consistent than have some elements ignore > the 'content' keyword. Replaced elements are already special cases in many areas of CSS, which is why I mentioned ::after. ::before and ::after don't work on replaced elements because with replaced elements we don't have the concept of separating the content box from the content. I don't see the benefit of doing so here, which would be inconsistent with other areas of CSS. > You can get yourself into the situation of leaving > behind a border if you use 'content' on any element, really. That's true. And padding, and box-shadows, and backgrounds, and filters, etc. > That's the > main reason I chose to default to 'element' - if you use 'content' you > have to think about what's going into the named flow and what remains. We > should add examples showing when it's useful to use 'content' and when > it's probably better to avoid using it. It's really best when the element > is mainly a container for other elements. Yeah. Or raw text. > I believe ::before and ::after content stay with the element as well in > the 'content' scenario. There's nothing in the named flow to hang them > from Agreed, although I only brought it up in regard to replaced elements.
Received on Saturday, 20 April 2013 00:13:09 UTC