- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:56:44 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Beam <dbeam@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 24, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> :empty either *always* matches ::before pseudos, or isn't applicable >> to them at all (depending on some unstated additional requirements in >> the spec that really need to be written down*). It's not actually >> useful for anything. > > ::before doesn't exist unless it has content, so your second statement seems more true. Except that an empty string as content does bring it into existence, and that should match :empty, I would think. > > But not generally useful. Once you insert an image into it, it is not empty, even if the image hasn't loaded. :empty is based on DOM content, which ::before doesn't have any of, so that's why it's either always true (because ::before has no DOM contents) or isn't applicable/is always false (because ::before isn't a DOM element either). The 'content' property obviously can't have any effect on whether :empty matches, for circularity reasons, but also because :empty's definition doesn't mention it. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 20:57:31 UTC