- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:45:07 -0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Bogdan Brinza <bbrinza@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > On 11 Nov 2014, at 01:22, Bogdan Brinza <bbrinza@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Since Dave started a thread on de-outofdatifying CSS Generated Content >> Module L3 – we’ve found a recent related interoperability issue I wanted to >> discuss. >> >> We’ve got reports that Google Glass website [1] doesn’t show GLASS logo on >> IE/Firefox, but does show it on Chrome. Investigation showed that actual >> image is inserted as content of an <a> element [2]. >> >> To my understanding this is spec’d in css-content spec [3], and as far as I >> can understand this was implemented in WebKit at some point. However it’s >> not really clear what’s the expected behavior here – pseudo elements address >> many questions on actual content insertion and are supported more >> universally. It is indeed intended that 'content' work on arbitrary elements. That said, the Glass website is using it in an absolutely terrible way - it's not doing some sort of CSS-based *replacement* of content (to upgrade text to an image, for example), it's just, for no reason that I can ascertain, providing the element with content through CSS rather than with an <img>. That's bizarre and stupid; there's no reason to have an empty <a>. > Presto (old Opera engine) supports ‘content’ on arbitrary elements both for > image and textual values. Chrome supports images values both on elements and > pseudos, but limits its support for textual values to pseudos. That's an incredibly weird restriction. > This snippet will show “hello” in old Opera, but not in Chrome > <style> p {content: "hello"} </style> > <p> > > Given that there is also support for ‘content’ on arbitrary elements in > print oriented CSS renderers, it feels like we should preserve the behaviour > in the spec, and get it supported more widely. Yes. > At the same time, I seem to remember that there were web-compat concerns > back at Opera, and this could explain why Chrome does not support textual > values on elements. Let's play with it? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:45:54 UTC