W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Text selector [was Re: breaking overflow]

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 15:24:25 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1001081324s18ae39a0o6d9cb374d55c35b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Belov, Charles" <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com> wrote:
>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:36 AM
>> It shouldn't be necessary to test for this specifically.  A
>> split text node doesn't know *why* it was split, and neither
>> does the CSS engine attempting to match against it.  As long
>> as you can manufacture a split text node through some means,
>> such as DOM scripting, you should be good.
> This is an example of where trimming of prior messages turns the
> thread into a game of Telephone.
> The subject was inadvertent splitting of consecutive text into separate
> text nodes by browsers in response to the transport layer protocol
> splitting running text across multiple packets, thus potentially causing
> interference with the ability of a ::text selector to work properly.

Nah, I understood what you were talking about and the context you were
talking in.  My email is still accurate.  There are multiple ways a
text node can be split, potentially interfering with ::text matching.
The CSS engine has no way of telling them apart, so it's not necessary
to test all possible ways it can happen - if you just test one you're
golden.  Creating separate consecutive text nodes via DOM manipulation
is pretty easy, and so is likely the way to do it.

Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 21:24:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:42 UTC