- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 06:35:09 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 30/11/2016 20:27, Alexander Shpack wrote: > Hi folks! > > It would be perfect if we get the next pseudo class: :in-view() with a > different parameters > :in-view(all) - selected node is 100% visible in viewport > :in-view(partial) - selected node is partially visible in viewport > :in-view(none) - selected node is outside of viewport > > And inverted logic using :not() > :not(:in-view(all)) - synonym of :in-view(none) > :not(:in-view(partial)) - selected node is partially INvisible in viewport > :not(:in-view(none)) - synonym of :in-view(all) No, sorry, this is not how negated selectors work. :not(:in-view(all)) means "not totally in the viewport" so it's really :in-view(partial) OR :in-view(none) :not(:in-view(partial)) means "not partially in the viewport" so it's "totally or not at all in the viewport" hence :in-view(all) OR :in-view(none) :not(:in-view(none)) means "not totally outside of the viewport" so it's "at least partially in the viewport" hence :in-view(all) OR :in-view(partial) The above is not saying I agree or disagree with a proposal that can introduce infinite loops, I am just fixing the selector interpretation mistake. </Daniel
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2016 05:35:43 UTC