W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [css3-content] Replacing ::outside with ::inside

From: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:48:43 +0200
Message-ID: <65307430904121248h514234d0r731d9d3a0043d3c8@mail.gmail.com>
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
2009/4/12 François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>:
> From: "Giovanni Campagna" <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
>> 2009/4/12 François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>:
>>> From: "Giovanni Campagna" <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
>>>> 2009/4/12 François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>:
>>> [...]
>>> x::outside don't herit of x's properties, because x::outside is the
>>> ancestror of x.
>>> It's x that inherits from x::outside. Wrong ?
>> Yeah. Pseudo-elements, regardless of where they're placed, inherit
>> from their superior parent.
>> See css3-content, section 4.3 "One difference between using elements
>> and using pseudo-elements is that the pseudo-elements inherit from the
>> elements (or pseudo-elements) that generate them, not from those they
>> are contained within."
> I was not aware of that. That reduces somewhat the use-cases for
> ::outside...
> But we still have something like that :
> li::outside:before {
>   content: 'An item inserted before the main item';
> }

Uhm... you can get the same with ::inside, it is just more code. Something like
li#main {
li::inside {
li::before {
content:"An item etc.";

That is, with ::inside and ::outside you can do exactly the same
things (you just need to change point-of-view). There are things that
require more code with ::inside and things that require more code with
::outside (I found more of the latter).
This could be an argument for having both, but I don't think
implementors will be very happy from this choice.

>>>> It is because of lack of implementation that I would like to change
>>>> "::outside" with "::inside". I hope that this change will make it
>>>> easier to implement, and thus more likely to be implemented soon.
>>> Why should this be easier to implement ?
>> Because you append boxes to the box tree, instead that inserting them
>> at arbitrary points.
> I think we really need an implementor's meaning here


>>> Regards,
>>> Fremy
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2009 19:49:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT