- From: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:40:19 +0300
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Patrick Dark <www-style.at.w3.org@patrick.dark.name>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
25.08.2015, 19:25, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>: >> šOn Aug 24, 2015, at 2:39 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> šThis is just "a better :empty". It was a silly mistake of ours that >> š:empty didn't apply to elements with only whitespace > > Agreed. So can we just fix :empty to be more broad, without breaking layouts? Or do we need a separate pseudo class? Indeed, if `:empty` in its current form is a mistake, then we could just redefine it to include whitespace instead of inventing something similar but slightly different and potentially confusingly named.
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2015 16:41:10 UTC