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

Re: [css-hierarchies] HTML style attribute

From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:06:46 +0400
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200111331078806@web86.yandex.ru>
Alexander probably did mean :this pseudoclass -- same one as I've proposed in topic related to @with proposal:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0371.html


06.03.2012, 19:14, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>:
> Le 06/03/12 08:52, Alexander Shpack a écrit :
>
>>  &  notation is not clear, imo. I think, the possibility to write a
>>  usual styles is better. Authors may use "this" keyword for defining
>>  style context
>>
>>  <a href=”#” style=”this {color: blue;}  this:hover { color: red; };
>>  this::before { content: '+'}”>
>>  a link that doesn’t follow traditionnal look&feel of links in the site
>>  </a>
>
> In. One. Word : _never_. Sorry :-)
> CSS also applies to XML where elements _can_ be named <this>.
> I think & is clear enough for the time being. This proposal just
> appeared on our radar and we have time to refine it. The syntax,
> namely the one-char descriptor we're going to use, is certainly
> note the most complex issue here so let's focus on what really
> matters instead of diverging entirely.
>
> On another note - and that's not for you Alexander but for everyone
> here - contributing to a technical discussion is fine; keeping a
> thread active beyond a firm and stable refusal by the editors is
> just noise and a waste of time for everyone. Thanks.
>
> </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 00:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT