- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:57:46 +0200
- To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "www-style CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:54:06 +0200, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote: >> Le 07/04/10 08:13, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit : >> >> >>> 2) I need the <summary> child of <details> to remain visible both when >>> expanded and collapsed, but have all the other contents appear or >>> disappear, including direct text node children of the <details> >>> element. >>> However, there is no way to address all of the children of <details> >>> except the <summary> child with a CSS selector. >> >> details > *:not(summary) ? >> >> That said, this will not address text nodes children of <details>. But >> IMHO, allowing text nodes here is a design mistake. DLs have DTs and >> DDs. <details> should only have element children. > > But this element is not defined that way. So if a closed <details> still > showed some of its children (even text nodes), then it would be an > implementation mistake too (if this was part of the UA style sheet). > > It would be better if there was an element surrounding just the part > that was open. If HTML5 wasn't thoughtful enough to include one, maybe > we could add it as a pseudo-element? > > details::actual-details { display:none } > details[open]::actual-details { display:block; } FWIW, HTML5 defines <details> in terms of a simple XBL binding. See: http://www.whatwg.org/html#the-details-element-0 Having a pseudo-element for the second box would make sense to me (iirc I suggested re-using ::value in some other thread). -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 14:58:43 UTC