W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

Re: [css3-content] ::outside::outside vs ::outside(2)

From: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:13:19 -0600 (MDT)
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <254799027.614271276006399225.JavaMail.root@zimbra.volantis.com>
You can have multiple pseudo elements in a selector, see http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-content/#syntax.

I have just noticed (why does it always happen after I send a question) that the above section does mention ::outside::outside in the syntax section, and states "...so long as no two ‘::outside’ pseudo-elements are adjacent, as that is meaningless".

However, I would say that ::outside::outside is not meaningless, it is at least as meaning full as ::outside(2). I personally find ::outside::outside far more logical than ::outside(2).

I read "p::outside::outside" as (from right to left) "the pseudo element outside the pseudo element outside a p element".

It seems to me that rather than adding the special ::outside(N) syntax and then prohibiting having them adjacent that it would be far simpler to allow them adjacent and discard the special syntax.

----- "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> ::outside::outside is, I would say, not allowed, since only one 
> pseudo-element
> may appear in a selection, and this element should be at the end. If
> there's
> no special rule for ::outside, it means ::outside::outside is not
> allowed.
> 
> Could a spec editor confirm that fact ?
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Paul Duffin" <pduffin@volantis.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:48 PM
> To: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
> Subject: [css3-content] ::outside::outside vs ::outside(2)
> 
> > I understand (because the specification explains it very clearly)
> why it 
> > is necessary to have the special syntax of ::before(n); because 
> > ::before::before and ::before(2) are different.
> >
> > However, I am not clear why special syntax of ::outside(n) is needed
> 
> > because I can't see any difference between ::outside::outside and 
> > ::outsize(2). The specification does not explicitly prohibit 
> > ::outside::outside (so I presume that it is valid) but also does not
> 
> > mention it either.
> >
> > Is ::outside::outside allowed?
> > How does it differ from ::outside(2)?
> >
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:14:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT