- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 13:09:17 -0800
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > >> On 02 Dec 2014, at 18:55, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:08:58 +0100, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> >>> wrote: >>>> Wondering how much extensibility we’d actually lose if we didn’t go >>>> through the host language hook. >>> >>> We can define :for() as a host language hook. >> >> Yeah, that was definitely the assumed intent. What other elements a >> given element is "for" is host-language specific. > > What would the semantic be? "Label associated with a labeled control as per HTML, an whatever else the host language wants”, or something more meaningful? I was thinking an inverse of the semantic we had for the /ref/ combinator <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/raw-file/f7490857b4eb/selectors/Overview.html#idref-combinators> ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 21:10:09 UTC