- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Ernest Cline wrote: > > This section contains the comment: > > (So basically any number of '::outside', '::before', '::after', and > '::alternate' pseudo-elements, so long as no two '::outside' pseudo- > elements are adjacent, as that is meaningless.) > > However the working draft goes on to mention ::outside(n) (as well as > ::before(n) and ::after(n) > > Might not the intended phrase have been: > , so long as no two '::alternate' pseudo-elements are adjacent, > ^^^^^^^^^ > since there is no ::alternate(n)? No, I meant ::outside. The difference is clearer if you compare this with ::before. We have: ::before ::before::before ...and we have: ::before(1) ::before(2) ...and they are _not_ the same. The first in both examples are identical, and refer to the CSS2 ':before' pseudo-element. The second in the first example means a box just inside the :before box. The second in the second example means a box just before the :before box. This is explained by the ASCII art at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-content-20030514/#nesting Now, for ::outside, we could have: ::outside ::outside::outside ...and: ::outside(1) ::outside(2) ...but if you think about it, they would mean the same thing: in the first case, representing a box around the first '::outside' box; in the second, representing the second surrounding box. In the interests of sanity, I decided it was easier just to allow one, and I picked the shortest one. Having multiple ::alternate pseudo-elements isn't something I'd considered; I've never really needed it in any of the examples I've constructed. However, you can always do it using the ::alternates on the various ::before(n) pseudo-elements if necessary. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 16:43:34 UTC