- From: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:13:19 -0600 (MDT)
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
You can have multiple pseudo elements in a selector, see http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-content/#syntax. I have just noticed (why does it always happen after I send a question) that the above section does mention ::outside::outside in the syntax section, and states "...so long as no two ‘::outside’ pseudo-elements are adjacent, as that is meaningless". However, I would say that ::outside::outside is not meaningless, it is at least as meaning full as ::outside(2). I personally find ::outside::outside far more logical than ::outside(2). I read "p::outside::outside" as (from right to left) "the pseudo element outside the pseudo element outside a p element". It seems to me that rather than adding the special ::outside(N) syntax and then prohibiting having them adjacent that it would be far simpler to allow them adjacent and discard the special syntax. ----- "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote: > ::outside::outside is, I would say, not allowed, since only one > pseudo-element > may appear in a selection, and this element should be at the end. If > there's > no special rule for ::outside, it means ::outside::outside is not > allowed. > > Could a spec editor confirm that fact ? > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Paul Duffin" <pduffin@volantis.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 3:48 PM > To: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org> > Subject: [css3-content] ::outside::outside vs ::outside(2) > > > I understand (because the specification explains it very clearly) > why it > > is necessary to have the special syntax of ::before(n); because > > ::before::before and ::before(2) are different. > > > > However, I am not clear why special syntax of ::outside(n) is needed > > > because I can't see any difference between ::outside::outside and > > ::outsize(2). The specification does not explicitly prohibit > > ::outside::outside (so I presume that it is valid) but also does not > > > mention it either. > > > > Is ::outside::outside allowed? > > How does it differ from ::outside(2)? > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 14:14:32 UTC