- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:48:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity”`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <mstange> Topic: [selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity”<br> <mstange> fantasai: Lea is not here, do we want to talk about it?<br> <mstange> fantasai: Anybody have anything to add to this discussion? There's no clear "this is definitely what we should do" resolution.<br> <TabAtkins> New suggestion: smoosh()<br> <Rossen> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-408128027<br> <TabAtkins> Sorry, :smoosh()<br> <zcorpan> -webkit-appearance: smoosh<br> <mstange> fantasai: This takes a list of selectors of which any can match. Unlike the :matches selector it basically zeroes out the specificity: anything you put inside has a specificity of zero.<br> <mstange> fantasai: This gives you more control about which parts of the selector affect the specificity and which down.<br> <mstange> fantasai: The only question is what to name it.<br> <mstange> fantasai: Some of the suggestions didn't get any traction.<br> <mstange> fantasai: We don't have any suggestion that is clearly better than the other ones.<br> <mstange> fantasai: My concern with a lot of these is that it is not very clear for :if or :where why this is different from :matches.<br> <mstange> ... It's different because of the zero specificity, so the name should have something to do with that.<br> <mstange> franremy: Last time we had narrowed it down to three.<br> <mstange> fantasai: New ones were added after last time.<br> <mstange> franremy: We almost agreed on one of them last time, don't remember which one.<br> <mstange> franremy: Would prefer to not expand the length of the list of candidates.<br> <mstange> dbaron: To make progress, we need to say "Nobody leaves the room until we decide."<br> <ericwilligers> Last time: if vs where<br> <fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Jul/0027.html<br> <mstange> fantasai: Our resolution last time was to narrow the short list to :if and :where, and we added :nil and :zero.<br> <mstange> ... So we could choose between those.<br> <mstange> Rossen: if, where, nil, zero, quash<br> <mstange> Rossen: In that order, with if being 1 and quash being 5, go ahead and put in your preferred 3.<br> <mstange> ... In the order of preference<br> <fantasai> 1 = if, 2 = where, 3 = nil, 4 = zero, 5 = quash<br> <franremy> 1 2 ... 4 3 5<br> <iank_> 2, 5, 3<br> <fantasai> 5, 3, 4, 1, 2<br> <cbiesinger> 2, 1<br> <florian> 1, 2<br> <TabAtkins> 3, 2, 1<br> <heycam> 2, 1<br> <futhark> 2 3 5<br> <dbaron> 4 3 2 5 1<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1170<br> <ericwilligers> 2, 1, 4<br> <Rossen> 2, 1<br> <eae> 3 2 1<br> <melanierichards> 2<br> <AmeliaBR> 2 4<br> <tantek> 4 3 5 :ns (no specificity)<br> <rachelandrew> 2, 1 , 3<br> <emilio> 3, 1<br> <Oriol> 1, 2, 4, but I would prefer any<br> <emilio> fantasai: lol<br> <bz> nsISelector<br> <bz> That's NS<br> <mstange> Rossen: A lot of votes for number 2 as the first choice<br> <AmeliaBR> Why was `:is` dropped from the options?<br> <mstange> ... Resolve on :where?<br> <mstange> ... If anyone has a strong reason to change this, speak up now.<br> <mstange> Resolved: Name the selector :where<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-432303830 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2018 15:48:18 UTC