- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:56:15 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 7, 2014, at 3:10 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. OK. He's doesn't married to the space between the component and the double colons though. There was much more to what he said than that part. Focus on that, instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water. I proposed a variation using the carrot, which retained his ideas on only exposing certain structures. > 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. We can make pseudo-elements better, if we work on it, but even if you disagree that now is the time, then at least consider the other parts of his proposal. > > Let's just do named combinators and keep everything sane. ^_^ > > ~TJ >
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 04:56:45 UTC