- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 11:46:01 +0100
- To: Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>
- Cc: public-cssselfrags@w3.org
On Mar 5, 2012, at 16:56 , Eric A. Meyer wrote: > At 16:05 +0100 3/5/12, Chris Lilley wrote: >> RB> It won't be the only one, for instance I'm not >> RB> sure what :scope would do, or :hover for that matter. >> >> The user-interaction ones like :hover are already disallowed by the draft spec. > > My feeling is that the spec should explicitly permit structural pseudo-classes, :not, and :lang. I can think of a few others, for instance :matches and :dir, plus all the nth-* and friends ones. I wonder if the :column ones could be useful for horizontal scrollers. > I may have argued otherwise in the past, can't remember now, but I feel like the UI element states are similar enough in concept to the dynamic states that they should be disallowed together. Hmmm, how about linking to the first form element that's not :disabled? Or those that are :invalid? > We could invert the proposal by listing what's forbidden, but I prefer to list what's acceptable, for reasons of both philosophy and clarity. Both have drawbacks, I can't say I have a strong feeling either way. PS: what's our endgame with this? Do we want to refine the draft and then throw it over to the CSS WG? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps http://www.w3devcampus.com/writing-great-web-applications-for-mobile/
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 10:46:31 UTC