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

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

From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 17:01:57 +0300
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1971481440165717@web6h.yandex.ru>
20.08.2015, 22:18, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>:
>> šOn Aug 20, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> šActually, this is probably one of reasons why such topics arise in the first place: names are too abstract.
>>
>> š`: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.


If we cannot change `:empty`, then we could rename `:blank` to the straightworward `:empty-or-whitespace` (or `:empty-or-space` as a brevity tradeoff).

Actually, we should not necessarily have a dedicated pseudo-class like `:empty-or-whitespace`. Instead, we could have _separate_ `:empty` and `:whitespace` (or `:space` for brevity) and just _combine_ them with `:matches` when needed:

    :matches(:empty, :whitespace)

or

    :matches(:empty, :space)

I would like to emphasise that the task of renaming `:blank` is not to find another short abstract confusing term synonymous to `empty`, but instead to find a (reasonably short/long) term that _clearly corresponds to what it does_.

We should avoid having synonymous terms like `empty` and `blank` at the same time which have unclear distinction but behave differently.
Received on Friday, 21 August 2015 14:02:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 August 2015 14:02:32 UTC