W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values] Proposal: add sibling-count() and sibling-index() (#4559)

From: Mike Bremford via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:01:20 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-562058086-1575540078-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I'd been trying to work up a coherent way to do this using `counter()` and `target-counter()` for some time, but I've (somewhat grudgingly) come to the conclusion that a new function is a better option - it avoids all sorts of hazards inherent in counters, which are considerably more complex then they first appear (when it comes to scoping).

I would personally lean towards a new function over a syntax that was a) not a function or b) used `var()`, because it leaves more room for expansion in the future: it's easy enough to define the sibling-index() function now, with no arguments, and get that implemented. If users demand more in the future, you can supply arguments (e.g. a selector as mentioned by @emilio). You would struggle to defined that cleanly with a `var()`.

Can I suggest that instead of `sibling-index()` and `sibling-count()` we consider `index(sibling)` and `count(sibling)` - because you can guarantee there will be situations where you want the count of your _children_ rather than siblings, for example to solve the issue from https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4211:
```css
ol[reversed] {
    counter-reset: list-item count(children);
}
```
It would be good to leave that option available in the syntax, even if it's not implemented yet.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by faceless2
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4559#issuecomment-562058086 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2019 10:01:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:57 UTC