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

Re: [proposal] Table cell selectors.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:45:36 -0800
Message-ID: <004f01c4ca93$46a10ee0$0c01a8c0@TERRA>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "www-style Mailing List" <www-style@w3.org>

Gentlemen, I revoke my proposal as
nth-child is already there and it is more generic then mine.
Notation of nth-child(4n+3) ('nth' itself and the formula) is a bit ugly but 
will work.

Thanks a lot to Boris for pointing on this nth-child.
I've missed this section completely. Mea culpa.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com



Original Message ?rom: "Boris Zbarsky"
|
| Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
| > | What happens with
| > |   E[@column=1 @row=1] {
| > |     display: block;
| > |   }
| >
| > Boris, seems I do not understand your question well....
| > First child of first row of table (inline-table) element will become 
block
| > instead of table-cell.
|
| But then it's not in the first row and first column of a table, is it?
|
| How about this example:
|
|   div { display: table }
|   div.cell { display: table-cell }
|   div[@column=1 @row=1].cell { display: block }
|
|   <div>
|     <div class="cell">Text</div>
|   </div>
|
| > This is just a short form of
| > table tr[@index=1] td[@index=1]
|
| It can't be, because that would involve CSS knowing something about 
"<table>"
| being a table.
|
| > | More generally, please see 
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1070385285&count=1
| >
| > I think that problems mentioned by Ian here is slightly outdated.
| > We already have Panteon full of different selectors. E.g. td[foo*=bar] 
is
| > already not simple computationaly.
|
| The problem clearly described in Ian's article is not one of computational
| complexity but one of circular dependencies.  Your proposal either has the
| circular dependency problem or makes CSS make assumptions about what tag 
names
| mean or something.  I can't tell which, because you have not clearly 
explained
| your proposal.
|
| > No as @ is such vendor prefix in this case.
|
| No, it is NOT a vendor prefix.  There is nothing preventing the CSS WG 
from
| introducing an @index notation in the future, and then your engine will 
cause
| namespace clashes.  Please, please use a proper vendor prefix for 
extensions.
| Especially ones that seem as ill-thought-out as this one.
|
| > BTW: We are using %% units heavily these days. Do you have any idea what 
is
| > vendor prefixes should we use for them?
|
| That's something you should have considered before starting to use them,
| frankly.  Perhaps you should have raised the issue on this mailing list?
|
| -Boris
| 
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2004 21:45:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:34 GMT