- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 07:59:55 -0700
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 4/23/13 1:49 AM, "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: >On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:05:38 +0200, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> > >wrote: > >> On 4/22/13 9:22 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 6:32 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> >>> wrote: >>>> In Gecko we call this :-moz-only-whitespace. So I'd offer >>>> :only-whitespace as another suggestion. >>> >>> Clear, but a bit long. That doesn't kill it, but makes it less >>> attractive. >> >> The much higher clarity of the name offsets the length cost, imo. Short >> >> and >> obscure/ambiguous is no win. > >I don't think the name is that clear - it doesn't really sound like it >includes :empty elements. > >(The MDN description illustrates the mismatch, I think: "The >:-moz-only-whitespace pseudo-class matches an element that has no child >nodes at all or empty text nodes or text nodes that have only white-space > >in them") I find it much *clearer* than blank. The latter conveys nothing and its only benefit is that it uses fewer characters, really. Doesn't mean it's perfect or unambiguous though.
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 15:00:30 UTC