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.

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-page/#blank-pseudo

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:57:32 UTC