W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2001

Re: css3 :nth-child() WD

From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 09:25:15 +0100
Message-ID: <3A9F58EB.2060008@netscape.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@knowscape.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Robin Berjon wrote:

>> I think this may be a bit clearer to use than the 6n+1 to 10 notation
>> proposed earlier.
> I totally agree ! cron-style notation is by far easier to read. I also
> think it's generally far more intuitive than the an+b notation. 

More people in the unix community, probably. Seriously, try to put a
web author in front of a crontab entry and take a look at his face...
This is CSS, not a subdirectory of /var/spool

I don't like Sicking's proposal for the following reasons :

1. I think that Tantek's father's suggestion which is in the current
   Last Call WD is elegant and simple, for both implementors and users,
2. I don't want to see a coding whitespace in the argument of a pseudo
   unless this whitespace is a descendant combinator,
3. we have a general agreement from all implementors on the current syntax
4. it took me, editor of the WD, fifteen seconds to understand your syntax.

The an+b notation is in between cron's notation and Sicking's proposal. I
am not at all in favor of a change.

Received on Friday, 2 March 2001 12:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:57 UTC