- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:05:41 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Anne van Kesteren:] > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 08:37:57 +0200, Sylvain Galineau > <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > > [Daniel Glazman:] > >> That's undefined at this time :-( But if we read the CSS OM spec with > >> a strict eye, it says the second parameter of getComputedStyle() is a > >> pseudo-element. "first-line" is not a pseudo-element; ":first-line" > >> and "::first-line" are... > > > > If we do read it with a strict eye then only ::before and ::after are > > supported [1]...so I'd very much argue against reading this > > normatively at this point :) > > Maybe :first-line and :first-letter ought to be added. But :selection for > instance does not make much I think. To what element does it apply? If you > really want answers to all of that you need to expose the render tree to > script, but I am not sure we want to go there. > > > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#extensions-to-the-window-interface The issue I raised was actually far more pedestrian than which pseudo-elements are exposed through the OM or whether the render tree should be available. The question was: given a pseudo-element ::foo exposed through the second optional argument to getComputedStyle(), what are the string values that map to ::foo ? Is it: "::foo" only ? "::foo" or ":foo" ? "::foo" or ":foo" or "foo" ? In other words, what constitutes the name of ::foo for this argument ? not clear that the
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 16:06:22 UTC