- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:06:46 +0400
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Alexander probably did mean :this pseudoclass -- same one as I've proposed in topic related to @with proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0371.html 06.03.2012, 19:14, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>: > Le 06/03/12 08:52, Alexander Shpack a écrit : > >> & notation is not clear, imo. I think, the possibility to write a >> usual styles is better. Authors may use "this" keyword for defining >> style context >> >> <a href=”#” style=”this {color: blue;} this:hover { color: red; }; >> this::before { content: '+'}”> >> a link that doesn’t follow traditionnal look&feel of links in the site >> </a> > > In. One. Word : _never_. Sorry :-) > CSS also applies to XML where elements _can_ be named <this>. > I think & is clear enough for the time being. This proposal just > appeared on our radar and we have time to refine it. The syntax, > namely the one-char descriptor we're going to use, is certainly > note the most complex issue here so let's focus on what really > matters instead of diverging entirely. > > On another note - and that's not for you Alexander but for everyone > here - contributing to a technical discussion is fine; keeping a > thread active beyond a firm and stable refusal by the editors is > just noise and a waste of time for everyone. Thanks. > > </Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 00:07:19 UTC