On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Clive Chan <doobahead@gmail.com> wrote: > I feel like ~ should have been used for previous-sibling, since it's > sometimes used as a negation operator. And then just use ++ or ~~ to > indicate the "all after/before" combinators. The ship has long sailed for > that, though, unless we're planning on breaking backwards compat. > > I like the idea of requiring spaces around the dash - it'll actually force > people to write nicely spaced out CSS combinators, haha - but it does break > typical naming conventions. Hm. I'm still for it, though. > > Or we could use more wordy things such as :siblings, :siblings:before, > :siblings:after, similarly to the jQuery .siblings() function (do any > frameworks have CSS-ified syntax for all-siblings yet?). Agreed that it should have been spelled ++ originally. ^_^ At least we can make up for the mistake with the descendant combinator - it can now be spelled >> as well as with a space (at least, per spec - no browser has picked it up yet). The way we do named combinators now is as /foo/ - a name between two slashes. So /siblings/ or /prev-sibling/, etc, is possible. ~TJReceived on Sunday, 8 February 2015 21:17:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC