- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 02:01:21 +0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>,"whatwg@lists.whatwg.org" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
14.08.2012, 08:19, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>:
> b) what these pseudo-elements should be called, that would best
> (most clearly and succinctly) represent their functionality
> to authors using them
>
> Name sets being considered:
>
> Set A Set B Set C Set D
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> :active-drop :drop :current-drop :active-drop
> :drop :can-drop :valid-drop :valid-drop
> :no-drop :no-drop :invalid-drop :invalid-drop
>From these options, set B seems to be most intuitive for me.
Though, it may make sense to use more specific `:drop-target` name instead of just `:drop` for first of pseudoclasses. Also, `:cannot-drop` maybe is more consistent with `:can-drop` and thus more suitable than `no-drop` (when using in same set as `:can-drop`). Also, `drop` may be used as a prefix (be at the beginning of pseudoclass name) for the all three. Alternatively, `valid`/`invalid` instead of `can`/`cannot` could be fine too. Sothat we'd end up with one of following two sets:
Set MT1 Set MT2
---------------------------------
:drop-target :drop-target
:drop-can :drop-valid
:drop-cannot :drop-invalid
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 22:02:14 UTC