- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 02:19:32 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think the biggest problem with multiple ::afters was not the lack of use cases, but the problem of ordering. * if they are numbered ::afters, they cascade poorly and clash, as different parts of the stylesheet are not necessarily aware of what other parts are trying to do with ::after. Also, this sort of encourages authors to use "BASIC line numbering", and go 10 by 10 or some such, to leave gaps between each after, so that they can put another one in between later on. * An alternative is to name them instead of numbering them, so if you've got ::after(clearfix), ::after(decoration), it's much easier to work with and avoid conflicts, but you've now got to worry about ordering them. I don't think this is an unsolvable problem, but I seem to remember that bumping into it showed that multiple afters was not as straightforward as previously expected, and that decrease people's enthusiasm for it enough that we've not touched it since. Am I misremembering? -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1195#issuecomment-293758462 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 02:19:38 UTC