Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
I am not sure I would consider this a 'bug', rather an experimental
feature. The (now marked as obsolete) css-content module allowed the
content property ( with value: <string>) to be applied to any
element (as opposed to only generated content pseudo elements):
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-content/#inserting-and-replacing-content-with-the
(I think it was also allowed in early drafts of CSS 2.0)
I don't think the feature is specified in other modules, although I
could have missed it.
Fwiw, WebKit and Opera allow the content of any element to be
replaced with a uri (e.g. an image).
Thank you for your comments, Philippe, for which I am very grateful.
I am, however, puzzled by your view that it can be considered a feature
(albeit an experimental feature) rather than a bug.
If an implementation chooses to ignore the wording of the current
specification, which according to :
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Overview.en.html
is CSS 2.1 as amended by CSS Color Level 3, CSS Namespaces and
Selectors Level 3, and implements a behaviour that directly
contradicts that specification, how can that be classified as
anything other than a bug ?
In my view (which I do not think is heretical), an author should be
able to /rely/ on a W3C specification, not have to test his/her work
against every extant browser -- would you not agree ?
Philip Taylor
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
