W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:38:17 +0300
Message-ID: <42C500F9.8030009@peda.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Laurens Holst wrote:
> 
>>I think that ::nth-last-child() should have never been added, it’s not 
>>very useful anyway :).
> 
> Where is that pseudo-element defined? AFAIK, there is only a 
> pseudo-class with a similar name, but different syntax.

Are you really trying to say that you didn't understand that the 
pseudo-class defined in [1] was meant? Or are you just nit-picking 
the fact that there were two colons (:) instead of just one?

The point was that you cannot have incremental rendering with styles 
like

   tr:nth-last-child(-n+2) td
   {
     background: red;
   }

And this was an argument against the claim that CSS has design 
constract "Incremental rendering (no reflow)".

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#nth-last-child-pseudo

-- 
Mikko
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 08:38:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT