- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 09:43:51 -0700
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > Just wanted to note that as I am watching all of these threads fly by I felt > some dissonance between a few of these caused by the example used here... > > On the one hand, we have Tab's proposal for pseduo-element combinator... it > makes sense that ::after really is something wholly different, especially as > it relates to shadow dom and the components work. On the other hand it > appears that this example wants to treat them as the same. Is there a > disconnect or is the example wrong? I assume you mean how attr() in a pseudo-element refers to the superior parent? That's just a nice convenience, since pseudo-elements don't have attributes at all, just tagnames and (potentially) pseudo-classes and pseudo-elements. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 16:44:40 UTC