Brad Kemper > On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: > > 20.08.2015, 01:20, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: >> The current :blank pseudo-class should probably be renamed >> and :blank used to indicate blank (omitted) form fields. > > The current tendency of using terms that are short and "look cool", "Short" is an important consideration. "Looking cool" isn't. I do think ":empty-ish" is cool, but in a silly way, and probably too jokey for a wide international audience. > but have unclear meaning and/or unobvious differences from each other (and therefore confusing), Yeah, being clear or even obvious is a good goal. We try. > is probably not quite a good idea. > > Actually, this is probably one of reasons why such topics arise in the first place: names are too abstract. > > `:empty` itself could probably be renamed to something more specific like `:no-child-nodes`. I think it's way too late to change. It has support in all the main browsers, and is therefore used by authors in existing pages. > Then `:blank` could be renamed to `:no-children` (in line with `Element.children` in DOM) or `:no-child-elements`. Possibly. A little long, IMO. > It's probably much better to have a name which is reasonably longer but perfectly clear than one which is shorter but unclear or confusing. Yeah. It's a balancing act. You don't want too long or too confusing.Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 19:19:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 August 2015 19:19:25 UTC