- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:40:04 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:21:10 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > While we definitely need to figure out something for this eventually, > reinterpreting ::before/after as siblings is definitely not the right > idea. We'll likely eventually add something that adds siblings for > all elements. So we should: (1) stick to the fact that ::before/::after on replaced elements do nothing and (2) eventually spec something like ::sibling-before/::sibling-after That would make sense to me, and I don't see any reason to wait to put (1) in a spec explicitly. Since the selector spec is the one refering to 2.1, which says we will eventually say how this work, it looks like a good place for a clarification. How about this at the end of section 3.7: Note. Since ::before and ::after add children to the originating element, they have no effect on replaced elements such as the HTML img element. - Florian Rivoal
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2014 22:40:29 UTC