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

Re: [css4-pseudo] The need for more powerful pseudo elements

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:50:27 -0700
Message-Id: <3A8F9903-109F-4275-BC8D-77E3BAD2FD1F@gmail.com>
Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
To: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
On May 2, 2013, at 10:48 AM, Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:

> // You made me confused ^_^ I obviously meant:
> 
> No, I'm NOT against anonymous boxes or boxes that do not generate content.
> However, as soon as you're using mutliple boxes to generate styling boxes
> and use no name or self-explanatory convention, your code become
> unmaintainable.

This is a very different argument than the one I responded to, where you said that generated content is not for styling. When I corrected that statement, you then implied that I didn't know what I'm talking about, and that I shouldn't say such bold things. Now you say you are not against such generated boxes used for styling, which is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement that caused me to reply.

What is "my code"? I did not send any code or even make any proposal.

> You know that ::after(4)::after(1), ::after(4)::after(2) and ::after(5) are
> parts of your speech bubble, but the next people which will edit your
> stylesheet won't.

I don't know why not. It doesn't seem significantly worse to me than understanding a regular ::after pseudo-element in a style sheet.

> Don't say you'll use comments because even if you do, a
> lot of people won't. And even if you're using them, not using self-contained
> modules will make a WYSIWYG editor unable to understand what you're doing
> and merge the pseudo-elements that work toegether as a cohesive group.

That seems like a rather large and unfounded assumption.

> If
> you use decorators, everything is self-explanatory, self-contained and
> reusable. I will never need to copy my code to another site and change the
> index of the pseudo-element-counters to accomodate the fact that on some
> other site I maintain, the ::after(4) was already used for something else,
> or that I want the speech bubble element to go after the ::after(10) box of
> the site.

If the number in the parentheses is truly site-wide or document-wide, then yes, that would be quite silly. Why wouldn't it just be number level per-group-of-elements-selected? I can't imagine may people would write a '*::after(4)' selector, but if they did, it would be no worse than writing a '*::after' selector, or writing a '* { z-index: 4; }' rule. Of course those would all likely have problems in portability of the style sheet.

> > I invite you to read the CSS Generated Content [1]'s
>> > abstract, introduction and table of contents:
>> A working draft, that hasn't advanced in ten years, full
>> of features that have mostly not been implemented. OK.
> 
> Complaining that a working draft has unimplemented features is the very
> wrong way of saying that even the newly added features do not cover your use
> cases. If you want a REC version, go look
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/generate.html and stop complaining about the new
> features.

I never complained about new features. Quite the opposite. You were the one complaining that if it wasn't in that draft it was therefore improper usage. In fact, even though I had commentary about your supposed source for why we should not encourage generated content for styling, I ended it with "OK", as you can see above. Meaning, I accepted it for the sake of further examination of your argument.

If I did want to complain, I would certainly do so, however, regardless of whether or not you tell me not to.

> That will not change the fact that even in new revisions the
> features that are considered are not the ones you said the spec did.

Which ones are the ones is aid said the spec did? Please quote me, if I said something untrue (or otherwise, i suppose) about what the spec said about the features considered. Because I really don't know what you are talking about now.

> > CSS Generated content was created with only this in mind.
>> And that proves that generated content is not to ever be used for other types of styling? I'd say that's absurd.
> 
> No. My point is that the reverse isn't true either. It's not because people
> used ::after & ::before to create speech bubble effects that they represent
> the optimal solution to the speech bubble problem.

I never said they do. Interesting too is what you clip out from what I did say, in order to change the flow of the conversation. 
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 19:51:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 2 May 2013 19:51:03 UTC