- From: Sam L'ecuyer <sam@cateches.is>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:40:07 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Le 30/04/2013 00:59, Tom Wardrop a écrit : >> Also, if ordinals are such a pain in the ass (I don't really like them >> myself), is there any particular reason why ::before and ::after can't >> be named, e.g. span::after(shadow) { } or span::after("my shadow") { }? > I like this idea. Flexbox’s 'order' property could be use to order the > pseudo-elements of the same element, but we’d still need a way to > consistently order pseudos that have the same 'order' value, or where > it’s just not specified. I'm a huge fan of this idea. The spec even has an issue raised that we could increase flexibility of pseudo-elements by naming them, but the potential syntax of that is unclear. Last time this came up, it was mentioned that the ordinal is the *identity* of the element, but I think a possible proposal would be: <selector>::after(pseudo-element-name) { order: <number>; } If the "order" attribute is omitted, they should be applied in the order they're declared. This would be safe, because then all pseudo-elements would be named and you wouldn't have to worry about interacting based on ordinal. However, that *would* leave some ambiguity around `::before`. I propose that, like the current doc, it always be given "order: 1;" and that in the case where multiple pseudo-elements are given the same order, ::before *always be applied first*, then the others in declaration order. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-pseudo/#gen-content
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2013 16:40:36 UTC