- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:45:36 -0800
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: "www-style Mailing List" <www-style@w3.org>
Gentlemen, I revoke my proposal as nth-child is already there and it is more generic then mine. Notation of nth-child(4n+3) ('nth' itself and the formula) is a bit ugly but will work. Thanks a lot to Boris for pointing on this nth-child. I've missed this section completely. Mea culpa. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com Original Message ?rom: "Boris Zbarsky" | | Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: | > | What happens with | > | E[@column=1 @row=1] { | > | display: block; | > | } | > | > Boris, seems I do not understand your question well.... | > First child of first row of table (inline-table) element will become block | > instead of table-cell. | | But then it's not in the first row and first column of a table, is it? | | How about this example: | | div { display: table } | div.cell { display: table-cell } | div[@column=1 @row=1].cell { display: block } | | <div> | <div class="cell">Text</div> | </div> | | > This is just a short form of | > table tr[@index=1] td[@index=1] | | It can't be, because that would involve CSS knowing something about "<table>" | being a table. | | > | More generally, please see http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1070385285&count=1 | > | > I think that problems mentioned by Ian here is slightly outdated. | > We already have Panteon full of different selectors. E.g. td[foo*=bar] is | > already not simple computationaly. | | The problem clearly described in Ian's article is not one of computational | complexity but one of circular dependencies. Your proposal either has the | circular dependency problem or makes CSS make assumptions about what tag names | mean or something. I can't tell which, because you have not clearly explained | your proposal. | | > No as @ is such vendor prefix in this case. | | No, it is NOT a vendor prefix. There is nothing preventing the CSS WG from | introducing an @index notation in the future, and then your engine will cause | namespace clashes. Please, please use a proper vendor prefix for extensions. | Especially ones that seem as ill-thought-out as this one. | | > BTW: We are using %% units heavily these days. Do you have any idea what is | > vendor prefixes should we use for them? | | That's something you should have considered before starting to use them, | frankly. Perhaps you should have raised the issue on this mailing list? | | -Boris |
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2004 21:45:45 UTC