- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:57:01 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Le 23/04/2013 16:59, Sylvain Galineau a écrit : > 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. I agree with Sylvain. Additionally, I’d like to note that there is already a page selector called :blank. Although they are conceptually similar and the context (@page rule vs. style rule) makes it unambiguous, it might be better not to use the same name for two different things. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-page/#blank-pseudo -- Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 09:57:28 UTC