W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

RE: [css3-page] LCWD issue 23 -- [23] Section 3.4.1 Example

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:54:40 -0500
Message-ID: <410-2200420845440281@mindspring.com>
To: "BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1)" <jim.bigelow@hp.com>, "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>




> [Original Message]
> From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
>
> > I plan to amend the specification say that the UA MUST use 
> > the declarations of the :first pseudo-class, if it exists, 
> > rather than either the :left or :right declarations

I must say that now that I've noticed it, I don't like :first acting
differently
from other pseudo-classes in overriding :left and :right so that regardless
of whether @page :left comes before or after @page :first, the rules in
@page :first take precedence, but that is the behavior specified by
CSS 2, so the question becomes which way do you want consistency?

(i.e. do we want behavior in CSS3 matching that in CSS 2 or do we want
all pseudo-classes having equal merit?)

Perhaps :left, :right, and :first should become ::left. ::right and ::first?
They do seem to act more like pseudo-elements than like
pseudo-classes anyway. And pseudo-elements such as ::first-letter
and ::first-line have these sorts of defined interactions regardless
of the relative position of the rules in the stylesheet.  Of course
as legacy pseudo-elements, the forms :left, :right, and :first would
have to continue to be accepted anyway.  This allows the convention
of all pseudo-classes being equal to continue to apply while also
preserving the behavior specified in CSS 2 to be used in CSS3.
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2004 23:54:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT