- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:55:32 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 26/11/2013 16:00, Brad Kemper wrote: >> It’s also unfortunate that the selector uses ‘ascending’ and >> ‘descending’ where HTML uses ‘’ and ‘reversed’ for the sort order. >> It would be easier for authors to remember if they were in sync. > Then I think we should have :sorted( [ normal | reversed | unsorted ] > ). 'Unsorted' would be for setting styles that only apply when the > sister values do not apply. 'sorted(normal)' would go well with a '' > sort order value. I don’t think :sorted(unsorted) makes sense. You can use :not(:sorted) > Is there a link to where this is described in HTML? Does the TH get > an attribute of 'sorted' and 'sorted=reversed' or something? Do the > TDs in scope also get to use the pseudo-class? It seems like the > attribute should also be able to be used on a COL or TR, but I guess > that is not up to us. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 16:56:04 UTC