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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:18:54 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7CAF3A1F-77A1-45D1-89A0-0AB3CC08DCE7@gmail.com>
To: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>



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