Re: [css3-selectors]: Proposal: :in-view() selector for better visibility control

I thought about it one more time... No, we can't remove "partial"
parameter. We have 3 states and :not(:in-view(all)) don't cover partial
statement, because it includes both statements: partial and none.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you, Daniel!
>
> As I see, partial parameter is not clear and not necessary. I think, we
> can remove it.
>
> On Dec 1, 2016 7:39 AM, "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-
> innovations.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2016 20:27, Alexander Shpack wrote:
>> > Hi folks!
>> >
>> > It would be perfect if we get the next pseudo class: :in-view() with a
>> > different parameters
>> > :in-view(all) - selected node is 100% visible in viewport
>> > :in-view(partial) - selected node is partially visible in viewport
>> > :in-view(none) - selected node is outside of viewport
>> >
>> > And inverted logic using :not()
>> > :not(:in-view(all)) - synonym of :in-view(none)
>> > :not(:in-view(partial)) - selected node is partially INvisible in
>> viewport
>> > :not(:in-view(none)) - synonym of :in-view(all)
>>
>> No, sorry, this is not how negated selectors work.
>>
>> :not(:in-view(all)) means "not totally in the viewport" so it's really
>>   :in-view(partial) OR :in-view(none)
>>
>> :not(:in-view(partial)) means "not partially in the viewport" so it's
>>   "totally or not at all in the viewport" hence
>>   :in-view(all) OR :in-view(none)
>>
>> :not(:in-view(none)) means "not totally outside of the viewport" so it's
>>   "at least partially in the viewport" hence
>>   :in-view(all) OR :in-view(partial)
>>
>> The above is not saying I agree or disagree with a proposal that can
>> introduce infinite loops, I am just fixing the selector interpretation
>> mistake.
>>
>> </Daniel
>>
>>


-- 
s0rr0w