- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 05:27:50 +0000
- To: Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:04 PM, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Does it require changes to the forward compatible parsing rules? I'm not
>>> saying it does or doesn't or that there is no reason to ever change it -
>>> just asking our experts..
>>
>> Nope, as long as we don't do anything stupid like using { as the
>> combinator character. ^_^
>
> Damn, that rules out using my favorite emoticon as a combinator:
> c]:{
To help you cope with the loss, I propose RFC 6919 pseudo-classes: :should-consider, :nth-should-consider(), :really-should-not-match, :would-probably-match etc.
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 05:28:21 UTC