- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:17:28 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > From: "Daniel Beardsmore" <public@telcontar.net> > | to display horizontally: > | > | ul.menu li { display: inline } > | ul.menu li:after { content: " | " } > | ul.menu li:last-child:after { content: none } > | > | A given list might look like: > | > | Foo | Bar | Baz > | > | But if this list wraps onto a new line, you'll see a problem: > | > | Foo | Bar | Baz | Iddly | Diddly | We've | Run | Out | > | of | Names | For | This | List > | > Rules like > > ul.menu li:after { content: " | " } > ul.menu li:last-on-line:after { content: none } > > effectively create oscillation condition in the layout algorithm. And exactly how this is different from :hover, for example? Here's an highly probably oscillating style for any document styled with CSS: :hover { position: absolute; top: 1000cm; } /* hover the pointer above the content to test */ If we already have stuff like this in the CSS, it possibly cannot be used as the *only* reason not to allow new similar constructs. If oscillation is considered a serious problem, the we just have to define one state as the correct one. Perhaps define maximum width over time during style resolution of :last-on-line() as the width that is used to determine *if* the element still fits on the current line? I'd suggest :nth-on-line() that would be defined along the lines of :nth-child(). Obviously, nth-on-line() would be a lousy name for a selecter when writing system uses columns instead of lines, but I hope you get the point. However, I must admit that even though I'm not opposed to a feature like this per se, there's a very high possibility that this wouldn't be implemented by real world UAs. And a nice style system without a real world implementation is useless - at least to me. Also, where does one end? If :nth-on-line() is added, perhaps we need :nth-word(), :nth-character(), :nth-pixel()? -- Mikko
Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 13:18:03 UTC