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

Please disregard my last post[1].  I retract the question as I
misunderstood the conversation.

1 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Feb/0178.html


On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com