- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:43:32 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Agreed Florian - fine with seeing those pseudos move from CSS3-UI to Selectors 4. -t On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: >> We discussed this at TPAC, and I believe we had consensus, but did not record a resolution. >> >> All the pseudo classes defined in css3-ui are also defined in selectors 4. There are no contradictions between css-ui definitions and selectors definitions. Mostly they are the same, but some have a few more details and clarifications in the selectors specification. Selectors also defines additional pseudo classes not mentioned in css3-ui. >> >> We could bring up to speed the definitions in css3-ui, but I don't think it is helpful to have two specifications advancing in parallel and with similar maturities, both claiming to supersede 2.1 and selectors 3. >> >> I propose that we remove the section in css3-ui about pseudo classes (http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/#pseudo-classes), and let selectors 4 define them. > > Agreed. There's no practical stability difference between the specs, > and all of the pseudoclasses in questions are already widely > implemented unprefixed, so it doesn't really matter anyway. > > ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 18:44:40 UTC