- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 10:05:49 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <2B911FB4-93A1-4973-9CCA-1E49F654CF1C@gmail.com>
On Jan 4, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Note that I'm OK with ::text not matching across element boundaries, at >> first glance, and not entirely convinced we want a ::text at all, but if we >> _do_ have it, I think it should have restrictions similar to first-line at >> least. > > If we *don't* allow it to match across element boundaries, then is > there a good reason for the restrictions? I don't believe there is. > I'm not seeing anything wrong with, say, turning an arbitrary span of > text into a display:table-cell as long as it can be wrapped in a > single pseudoelement box. There is significant power to be gained by > allowing the full suite of properties on ::text, which is a very > strong argument for not allowing it to cross element boundaries. This is my feeling exactly. On Jan 4, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> <p>foo<i>bar</i> baz</p> >> p::text("foo b") { display: block; } > > Hold on. Why would we ever allow ::text to have a 'display' property set? What are the use cases? I have been assuming that ::text would have restrictions similar to first-letter and first-line. I think there are all sorts of use cases. Here is one: ::text("Example \d: *\n") { display: block; padding: .5em; margin: 1 em 0; border: 1px solid #999; background-color: #eee; } (The "\n" part is assuming that a "<BR>" would be recognized as a newline, but that is not central to this part of the discussion.)
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 18:06:26 UTC