- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:10:09 -0800
- To: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Linss, Peter <peter.linss@hp.com> wrote: > Please don't get hung up on this bit. There's nothing in my proposal of exposing component pieces as pseudo-elements that requires changes to the way current pseudo-elements are handled. This was more of an aside about an implementation detail from Gecko code once-upon-a-time. Gecko treated pseudo-elements as logical constructs within the parent, that's all I was getting at. The reason I'm getting hung up on it is because I'm strongly against anything that makes some pseudo-elements work differently, syntax-wise, than others. I think the way we handle pseudo-elements today was a minor legacy mistake, but that's not something we can fix now, and it means that imbuing pseudo-elements with more structure is tricky/confusing to deal with. Let's just do named combinators and keep everything sane. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 23:11:00 UTC