- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 16:37:40 -0700
- To: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com
<mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
> I always set default `background-repeat` to `no-repeat` via following rule:
>
> *,
> :before,
> :after {background-repeat: no-repeat; }
This selector is identical under both current behavior and my
proposal. (It would become equivalent to "*, * :: before, * ::
after".)
> It's quite possible that it can then be overrided like:
>
> .example :before {background-repeat: repeat-x; }
It's possible, but do you actually have that in your code? It's kinda weird.
> Generated content is widely used currently, and this is _not_ rare or stupid. It's reality that should not be broken by a questionable syntax-improvement.
I didn't say that generated content is rare or stupid.
An additional note: I wouldn't carry over the quirk that a
single-colon works equally well. I'd just make the single-colon forms
of the existing pseudos as a special-case and have them explicitly
keep their exact current meaning.
~TJ
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 23:38:29 UTC