- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:33:20 -0800
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > Because of this confused identity, pseudo-elements don't work well > with our abstractions. If you want both the <a> and <b> children of > an element, you can write `foo > *:matches(a,b)`. But if you want the > ::before and ::after pseudo-elements of an element, there's no real > equivalent - it's impossible to first transform the match set into one > that contains the pseudo-elements in question, and then write a > :matches() argument that'll match them. In a just world, I could write `foo :: *:matches(before, after)`, because ::before and ::after would be normal elements in the pseudo-tree, with tagnames and everything, and then all of this would Just Workâ˘. Yet more evidence that this is not the best of all possible worlds. (Some of you might recall that I tried to make this happen a few years ago, but the exceptions needed to make existing code like `::before {...}` work were too much.) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 00:34:07 UTC