- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:39:05 -0800
- To: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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). Also: Haskell. Alphanumeric function names can be wrapped in ` to turn them into infix operators. That's... not a bad idea. Definitely in the running for me, alongside ^foo. > Is there any support for dt/following-sibling::dd { ... } ? > > Even if the ‘::’ part is considered too reminiscent of pseudo-elements, So that's the XPath syntax. I think it's a no-go in CSS, due to it looking like it's referring to a pseudo-element named ::dd. > 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. > > ). Hmm, let's see: article ^shadow heading ^descendants p Than in: article /shadow heading /descendants p Damn, that's pretty good, actually. I thought I would like it less due to it being less visible, but it's really not bad. > 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. Yeah, I've got no problem with that, assuming we introduce variants of the existing combinators. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 01:40:00 UTC