- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:18:51 -0400
- To: "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:30:29 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> There's also ::cue().
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand how this idiom is supposed to work when you
>>>> have a list of selectors as argument. Consider:
>>>>
>>>> video::cue(b, i) { background:lime }
>>>>
>>>> If it's changed to
>>>>
>>>> video::cue b, i { background:lime }
>>>>
>>>> then that looks like there are two selectors, "video::cue b" and "i".
>>>
>>> Just use the existing CSS tools for indicating choice within a selector:
>>>
>>> video::cue :matches(b, i) {...}
>>
>> OK. So should we change ::cue(foo) to ::cue foo?
>
> If possible, yeah. It was brought up during the WebApps meeting, but
> we didn't have the right people in the room to decide definitively on
> it.
Browsers have already implemented the ::cue() selector. Can those
browser venders please confirm that it's ok to change this?
Thanks,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 03:19:38 UTC