W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [selectors4][css-syntax] Pseudo-elements vs. combinators

From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:04:33 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20140206010433.GA32112@mail.internode.on.net>
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 08:04:46AM -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Crap... Yeah i don't know why i said  tilde i meant to say ` ... TIL Don't
> > mail the list before you finish your first cup of coffee I guess.
> 
> Heh, no problem.  Personally, I don't like backtick because it looks
> like a quote character.

It could actually be used as a quote-like character, as in
dt `next` dd { break-before: avoid }.

This would match at least one programming language (viz. Mercury) that uses
paired backticks to allow user-defined infix operators (like A `union` B).


Is there any support for  dt/following-sibling::dd { ... } ?

Even if the ‘::’ part is considered too reminiscent of pseudo-elements, I think
we should consider

  dt /following-sibling dd { ... }

(while keeping in mind Tab's comment

> Slashes were used for the ref combinator, though we're punting that
> and might not do it at all.

).

And even if we reject slash, we should consider using the same names as in
xpath wherever possible (e.g. ^following-sibling or whatever), so long as
the xpath combinator doesn't have some difference in semantics sufficient to
cause "false friend" problems.

pjrm.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 01:04:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC