- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2018 17:57:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I fat-fingered the delete button of a previous comment, basically I said that I misread the proposal and that the code with `::contents` needs some small modifications: ```css ul.recycler > * { & { display: contents } &::contents { display: block } & + ::before { /* ... */ } } ``` It's true that proper hit-testing may need some refinements, like using `ul.recycler > ::contents:hover` instead of just `ul.recycler > :hover`, or playing with `pointer-events`. But I think it's mostly doable. This table summarizes the relationships between the related proposals: <table> <thead> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Feature</th> <th colspan="4">Can be simulated with</th> </tr> <tr> <th><code>::between</code></th> <th><code>::contents</code></th> <th><code>::wrapper</code></th> <th><code>::outer-before</code> / <code>::outer-after</code></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <th><code>::between</code></th> <td>-</td> <td>Yes, with <code>display: contents</code> and <code>::before</code> / <code>::after</code>.</td> <td>Only if <code>::wrapper::before</code> / <code>::wrapper::after</code> are allowed.</td> <td>Yes.</td> </tr> <tr> <th><code>::contents</code></th> <td>Mostly not.</td> <td>-</td> <td>Only for use-cases without <code>::before</code> nor <code>::after</code></td> <td>Mostly not.</td> </tr> <tr> <th><code>::wrapper</code></th> <td>Mostly not.</td> <td>Only for use-cases without <code>::before</code> nor <code>::after</code></td> <td>-</td> <td>Mostly not.</td> </tr> <tr> <th><code>::outer-before</code> / <code>::outer-after</code></th> <td>Mostly not.</td> <td>Yes, with <code>display: contents</code> and <code>::before</code> / <code>::after</code>.</td> <td>Only if <code>::wrapper::before</code> / <code>::wrapper::after</code> are allowed.</td> <td>-</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> IMO the best and most complete one is `::contents`. `::wrapper` may be good enough if pseudo-element nesting is allowed, but this would allow generating arbitrarily-deep structures which I suspect will be more difficult to implement. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2960#issuecomment-410536775 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2018 17:57:30 UTC