W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [CSS OM] list of issues

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:09:57 +0200
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vx6uavdt64w2qv@annevk-macbookpro.local>
On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:05:41 +0200, Sylvain Galineau  
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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

Well per the current specification it would only be ":after", "::after",  
":before" and "::before". If we allow new post CSS 2.1 pseudo-elements it  
would only be "::foo" where foo is the name of the new pseudo-element.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 08:10:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:02 UTC