- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 21:09:18 +0200
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> While I agree with you that the grouping allowed by @region was good
> (we've received feedback that the repetition required to use
> ::distributed() isn't great either), I'd rather solve it generically
> by reworking my Hierarchies (Nesting Rules) draft.
>
> In other words, I support keeping ::region(), and then working on a
> generic nesting solution that'll fix the repetition.
>
> ~TJ
On a another note, I don't like the fact the selector is an argument sitting inside a parenthesis of ::distributed/::region because it implies something else can follow the selector. For example, doing "someElement::after:hover" or "someElement::scrollbar-track:hover" could make sense but "someElement::region(>*):hover" does not.
I still believe we need something that looks more like a combinator than a pseudo-element here.
someElement ...> *
someElement ...> *:hover
I know it has been rejected because (a...b) matches elements that b does not necessarily but I really believe this is not a big issue and it makes much more sense than using ::region(*) and ::distributed(*) while both actually just represent a selection function the same way any other combinator does if you think left to right, which --all your CSS users-- do.
Also, it's shorter to write if we have nesting:
someElement {
abc: def;
abc: def;
@then ...> strong {
abc: def;
abc: def;
@where :hover {
abc: def;
abc: def;
}
}
@then ...> italic {
abc: def;
abc: def;
@where :hover {
abc: def;
abc: def;
}
}
}
than
someElement {
abc: def;
abc: def;
@where ::region(>strong) {
abc: def;
abc: def;
@where :hover {
abc: def;
abc: def;
}
}
@where ::region(>italic) {
abc: def;
abc: def;
@where :hover {
abc: def;
abc: def;
}
}
}
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 19:09:49 UTC