- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:45:34 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, Takashi Sakamoto <tasak@google.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:30:29 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> There's also ::cue().
>>>
>>> I don't understand how this idiom is supposed to work when you
>>> have a list of selectors as argument. Consider:
>>>
>>> video::cue(b, i) { background:lime }
>>>
>>> If it's changed to
>>>
>>> video::cue b, i { background:lime }
>>>
>>> then that looks like there are two selectors, "video::cue b" and "i".
>>
>> Just use the existing CSS tools for indicating choice within a selector:
>>
>> video::cue :matches(b, i) {...}
>
> OK. So should we change ::cue(foo) to ::cue foo?
If possible, yeah. It was brought up during the WebApps meeting, but
we didn't have the right people in the room to decide definitively on
it.
~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 17:46:21 UTC