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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:02:45 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <310DEC4D-0B6D-427E-91EB-AAC4A6BE40C3@adobe.com>

On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hmm, let's see:
> 
> article ^shadow heading ^descendants p
> 
> Than in:
> 
> article /shadow heading /descendants p
> 
> Damn, that's pretty good, actually.  I thought I would like it less
> due to it being less visible, but it's really not bad.

Yeah, I like the look of it too.

Less fan of the backtick. While it is used out there - some flavors of Markdown also use it to mark up inline code - itís still esoteric and visually ambiguous enough Iím honestly concerned weíll see Stack Overflow questions from people wondering why a regular quote doesnít work until the end of times. 

> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, I've got no problem with that, assuming we introduce variants of
> the existing combinators.
> 
> ~TJ
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 22:03:27 UTC

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