Re: [selectors4][css-syntax] Pseudo-elements vs. combinators

If we have a generic combinator using slashes then we can support ref still
`label /ref/ input` or something


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 08:04:46AM -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Crap... Yeah i don't know why i said  tilde i meant to say ` ... TIL
> Don't
> > > mail the list before you finish your first cup of coffee I guess.
> >
> > Heh, no problem.  Personally, I don't like backtick because it looks
> > like a quote character.
>
> It could actually be used as a quote-like character, as in
> dt `next` dd { break-before: avoid }.
>
> This would match at least one programming language (viz. Mercury) that uses
> paired backticks to allow user-defined infix operators (like A `union` B).
>
>
> Is there any support for  dt/following-sibling::dd { ... } ?
>
> Even if the '::' part is considered too reminiscent of pseudo-elements, I
> think
> we should consider
>
>   dt /following-sibling dd { ... }
>
> (while keeping in mind Tab's comment
>
> > Slashes were used for the ref combinator, though we're punting that
> > and might not do it at all.
>
> ).
>
> And even if we reject slash, we should consider using the same names as in
> xpath wherever possible (e.g. ^following-sibling or whatever), so long as
> the xpath combinator doesn't have some difference in semantics sufficient
> to
> cause "false friend" problems.
>
> pjrm.
>
>


-- 
- Matthew Robb