2012-10-22 20:58, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
What is somewhat odd is that when I use the validator
to confirm that it is indeed valid, and then use the CSS link-
through to validate the CSS, it (a) validates against the CSS 3
specification (why ?),
They decided the default to CSS3 a while ago. Some
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I don't think the constraints prevent that; class="Set: 1; parts: 2" is
valid HTML 4.01,
Well I'm d@mned : so it does. Thank you for drawing that to my
attention. What is somewhat odd is that when I use the validator
to confirm that it is indeed valid, and then use
2012-10-22 20:31, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>> You are effectively using the 'style' attribute as a carrier for
>> application-specific data, not for making presentational suggestions.
[...]
>> But no better option appeared to present
>> itself; "title" was an option, but there was a distinct risk tha
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
In any browser that conforms to the CSS 2.1 specification, yes. But
browsers are increasingly deviating from CSS 2.1 here, allowing at least
a url(...) value. I think it is an unnecessary risk to rely on a CSS 2.1
principle that was really meant to say just that in CSS
2012-10-22 19:50, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
I use it because (a) it is permitted (i.e., it is in accordance with
the specification and therefore validates, yet has no effect on the
rendered output in any conforming browser),
In any browser that conforms to the CSS 2.1 specification, yes. But
Thank you for your further comments, Philippe : as we are
moving on to philosophy rather than CSS per se, I will
not continue the debate here. However, to address your
closing query :
PS - If one makes an error in a stylesheet (did you wrote E {
content: 'foo'; } instead of E::after {} ?) then
Le 22 oct. 2012 à 18:10, Philip TAYLOR a écrit :
> 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
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: ) to be applied to any
element (as opposed to only generated content pseudo elements):
http://dev
> > By the by, in terms of zealous generated content as a philosophy, the
> > type=date inputs are another great example of Opera bringing huge
> > unasked-for gifts to the table.
>
> Uh? that is part of HTML5 (and actively under development for Gecko and
> WebKit):
>
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/spec
Le 22 oct. 2012 à 08:25, Philip TAYLOR a écrit :
> According to :
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#content
>
> the computed value of the "content" attribute for an element
> (/qua/ element) is "normal"; Seamonkey and Internet Explorer
> both respect this, and render :
>
>
For what it's worth, I noticed this behaviour in Opera at least 2 years
ago. It strikes me as definitely wrong, and a bug according to the spec
(depends on how much implication you want to read into it — Opera have
arguably excelled in pursuing an aggressively imaginative approach to
implementing v
According to :
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#content
the computed value of the "content" attribute for an element
(/qua/ element) is "normal"; Seamonkey and Internet Explorer
both respect this, and render :
foo
as :
foo
It has been reported, however, that O
12 matches
Mail list logo
