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

Re: [css-regions] ::region() or ::fragment() pseudo-element

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:31:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDarvD_QRyJePf=njTcWdfVun1vBfkJ9b1014PRXXU-kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, W3C WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:13 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>> That's my point. I don't think that the change to ::fragment lets us use
>> future grouping solutions. All of the grouping examples I've seen (and the
>> Hierarchies proposal) split similar selectors and create a group out of
>> the left side of the split. So if you have the current region styling
>> syntax:
>>
>> <region-selector>::region(<content-selector-A>) {}
>> <region-selector>::region(<content-selector-B>) {}
>>
>>
>> Then you could use a left-side grouping mechanism to do what we want,
>> which is define a set of region styles for a particular region:
>>
>> Group<region-selector>
>> {
>>  ::region(<content-selector-A>) {}
>>  ::region(<content-selector-B>) {}
>> }
>
> That would likely select regions that were descendants of the <region-selector>.
>
> It might be better than the other pseudo-element option, but it still looks pretty bad to me. Instead of just writing something like this:
>
> @region #myregion {
> p {}
> img {}
> h3 {}
> h4 {}
> }
>
> ...which is clean and clear, I have to write something that is still much more cumbersome, and less readable:
>
> group #myregion {
> ::scope::region(p) {}
> ::scope::region(img) {}
> ::scope::region(h3) {}
> ::scope::region(h4) {}
> }

It would be more like:

#myregion {
  &::region(p) {}
  &::region(img) {}
  &::region(h3) {}
  &::region(h4) {}
}

But still, I get your point.  Hmm.  The whole reason I took Shadow DOM
down the pseudo-element route was to keep the distribution selector
from being a "normal selector", because it's really not - there's some
tree-jumping going on.  But using an at-rule to break up the selectors
accomplishes the same thing, and looks like it might indeed be easier
from an authoring perspective, and better for nesting purposes.

Okay, I guess I'm not opposed to switching back to an at-rule.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 05:32:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC