W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css3-values] syntax identity of <url> (was: [css4-values] Templated URLs)

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:08:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jfwt0xzqXK8O2xru5SknoTmbQ-sb_b_7cX9z0xGqyRAQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.  It seems to muddy the water in
terms of being able to really understand pseudo elements and shadow dom...
when I read it, I get a sinking feeling that something is wrong either with
it or with my understanding.
On Apr 6, 2012 12:44 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just wanted to note that as I am watching all of these threads fly by I
> felt
> > some dissonance between a few of these caused by the example used here...
> >
> > On the one hand, we have Tab's proposal for pseduo-element
> combinator...  it
> > makes sense that ::after really is something wholly different,
> especially as
> > it relates to shadow dom and the components work.   On the other hand it
> > appears that this example wants to treat them as the same.  Is there a
> > disconnect or is the example wrong?
>
> I assume you mean how attr() in a pseudo-element refers to the superior
> parent?
>
> That's just a nice convenience, since pseudo-elements don't have
> attributes at all, just tagnames and (potentially) pseudo-classes and
> pseudo-elements.
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 17:08:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT