W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Naming of selector that matches :empty or only-whitespace (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2013-04-10)

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:57:01 +0200
Message-ID: <5178FDED.4020005@exyr.org>
To: www-style@w3.org
Le 23/04/2013 16:59, Sylvain Galineau a écrit :
> On 4/23/13 1:49 AM, "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:05:38 +0200, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 4/22/13 9:22 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:32 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In Gecko we call this :-moz-only-whitespace.  So I'd offer
>>>>> :only-whitespace as another suggestion.
>>>> Clear, but a bit long.  That doesn't kill it, but makes it less
>>>> attractive.
>>> The much higher clarity of the name offsets the length cost, imo. Short
>>> and
>>> obscure/ambiguous is no win.
>> I don't think the name is that clear - it doesn't really sound like it
>> includes :empty elements.
>> (The MDN description illustrates the mismatch, I think: "The
>> :-moz-only-whitespace pseudo-class matches an element that has no child
>> nodes at all or empty text nodes or text nodes that have only white-space
>> in them")
> I find it much *clearer* than blank. The latter conveys nothing and its
> only benefit is that it uses fewer characters, really. Doesn't mean it's
> perfect or unambiguous though.

I agree with Sylvain.

Additionally, I’d like to note that there is already a page selector 
called :blank. Although they are conceptually similar and the context 
(@page rule vs. style rule) makes it unambiguous, it might be better not 
to use the same name for two different things.


Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:57:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:25 UTC