- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:02:02 +0200
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Hċkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
>> ::region(>strong) { >> abc: def; >> abc: def; >> @where :hover { >> abc: def; >> abc: def; >> } >> } > > I take this to mean '::region(>strong) :hover'. But how to do the embedding for '::region(>strong):hover' or '::region(>strong :hover)' or '::region(>strong:hover)'? The @rule didn't suffer this lack of clarity. You're right. I noted this issue before, but didn't notice it impaired nesting. So, if we want a pseudo element and justify this with nesting possibilities, we will need a pseudo-element without the parentheses (ie: a combinator-like pseudo-element), or we should use a true combinator or an at-rule instead. The advantage of the combinator is that you can use both the independent and grouped syntaxes: my-region ... region-content {} my-region ... region-content-2 {} and my-region { @then ... region-content {} @then ... region-content-2 {} } and my-region { @then { region-content {} region-content-2 {} } } while with @region you are forced to use the second alternative @region my-region { :scope region-content {} :scope region-content-2 {} } (note that it may be seen as an advantage by some)
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 14:02:33 UTC