W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2015

Re: [selectors-4] :blank pseudo-class

From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:41:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CADC=+jd1yV9w=5oMTTAfwdcD-EdEnma3P+ifbfnmmwAMxAd6Dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote:
> Brian Kardell skrev:
>> how about :null or :void?
> Given the association of the terms, it would be a poor fit. In theory
> :null could be used in some setup to find null pointers in the DOM. And
> void is used for return values, not stating content.
>
> And then there is the actual definitions of the words in the English
> language. Null is something that no longer is. And void is something
> that is no longer applicable.
>
> In short, bad idea.

Yeah, I disagree on all counts, but I am just one opinion and simply
offering an alternative.  The reason "null" and "void" are used so
much in programming is that they have common meaning for things with
no value - "" is called "null string", zero is null or nill, etc...
What you're looking for with values in a pseudo here are fields which
contain no value... Presumably this is after a trim or whatever
validation you have.  But again, that's merely something to chew on,
it doesn't surprise me if mileage and opinions vary and my feelings
aren't hurt if we have something else.

-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 18:41:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 August 2015 18:41:52 UTC