W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2008

Re: [your feeback needed] :nth-child() argument

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:36:04 -0700
To: Justin Rogers <justrog@microsoft.com>
Cc: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>, "daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080319063604.GA5639@ridley.dbaron.org>

On Tuesday 2008-03-11 16:25 -0700, Justin Rogers wrote:
> That said, internal discussion points to the only strange thing
> being 3{space}n versus 3n. We discussed how this would impact a
> generalized math module and we can't think see how there would be
> any difference unless we supplied that there was a different
> calculation semantic due to the space. We could not have the space
> restriction at all, but state that (number ident) is not a valid
> token sequence if people are passionate about disallowing
> 3{space}n. I'm not passionate enough to write the grammar to
> restrict it though and would rather just leave it open.

I prefer disallowing space between "3" and "n" in the 3n of
:nth-child(3n) because I think 3n is conceptually quite similar to
3px or 3em (they're both multiplication of a number and its unit),
where there is existing CSS precedent for not allowing space.

However, I think allowing whitespace everywhere else would be better
for authors, and I think it's easy enough to implement, even if it
does require handling the same concepts arriving in different token
sequences.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 06:36:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:02 GMT