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

Re: [css-book] Re: [css-page] Meaning of :first page selector (was: [css3-gcpm] Page groups, named pages, and :first)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:47:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAcWOYsvSfjcNw4ohOD3S_YNzhuPhOd808d7WCpSuJbsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>, Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Simon Sapin wrote:
>  > For 15 years since CSS 2.0 (which already had named pages), ':first' has
>  > been defined as "first page of the document":
>  >
>  > http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/page.html#q8
>  >
>  > Instead of changing it now, I’d rather have a new page selector such as
>  > :first-of-group and possibly :nth-of-group() (together with :nth() which
>  > counts in the document.)
>
> To me, it seem quite intuitive that
>
>    @page :nth(1) { ... }
>
> selects the first page and that
>
>    @page funky:nth(1) { ... }
>
> selects the first page of the "funky" group
>
> I don't see a need for further syntactic differentiations. Also, this
> has been implemented and used for years.

That's not how selectors work.  The fact that it's intuitive to act
that way has confused plenty of people over the years, which is why we
introduced the :nth-match() pseudo-class in Selectors 4, so you can
get the intuitive behavior in some manner.

Don't break selector invariants like "every selector is independent".

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 15:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 October 2013 15:47:52 UTC