- From: Anne van Kesteren via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 07:00:01 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I don't think I argued against making it a part-like pseudo-element? Not sure why that is being revisited. I argued against exposing the fact that `::picker()` matches a particular type of element. I think the tradeoff is between forever enshrining that this needs to act as if there was an HTML element with a `popover` attribute set underneath versus keeping it more general and only requiring more "obvious" pseudo classes to match, such as `:hover`. Who knows, we might introduce a better suited element such as `<popup>` at one point which would not match `:popover-open`. In order to reuse it here we'd have to add special cases at that point. The other argument against it matching is that it introduces redundant API surface. This is slightly weaker, but whenever we don't have to, I'd definitely prefer not introducing redundant ways to do the same thing, especially if the redundant way is significantly more verbose and addresses fewer scenarios. -- GitHub Notification of comment by annevk Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10775#issuecomment-2328068716 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2024 07:00:02 UTC