- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:36:29 +0800
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- CC: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, www-style CSS <www-style@w3.org>
(12/03/29 17:56), François REMY wrote:
> Most of your proposal just doesn't make sense.
>
> Each pseudoclass has a different meaning, how can you say "I just want
> one of them"? Seriously, why would you apply the same styling for a
> :hover element, a :invalid and a :valid element ? Matching any
> parametric pseudoclass is also pure non-sense. :*(xxx) would match
> :any(:matches(xxx),:not(xxx)) which mean all elements.
Agreed. But perhaps there might be use cases of *::*, which should
include all elements and pseudo-elements all together, esp. for
non-inheritable properties, although I haven't thought of anything that
I would truly consider useful.
(If 'image-orientation' were not changed to be inheritable.
*::* { image-orientation: from-exif; }
might be useful maybe? Would *::* { clear: both; } be any of use? What
about *::* { box-decoration-break: clone; } ? )
Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 20:37:00 UTC