- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2018 17:57:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I fat-fingered the delete button of a previous comment, basically I said that I misread the proposal and that the code with `::contents` needs some small modifications:
```css
ul.recycler > * {
& { display: contents }
&::contents { display: block }
& + ::before { /* ... */ }
}
```
It's true that proper hit-testing may need some refinements, like using `ul.recycler > ::contents:hover` instead of just `ul.recycler > :hover`, or playing with `pointer-events`. But I think it's mostly doable.
This table summarizes the relationships between the related proposals:
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2">Feature</th>
<th colspan="4">Can be simulated with</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><code>::between</code></th>
<th><code>::contents</code></th>
<th><code>::wrapper</code></th>
<th><code>::outer-before</code> / <code>::outer-after</code></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><code>::between</code></th>
<td>-</td>
<td>Yes, with <code>display: contents</code> and <code>::before</code> / <code>::after</code>.</td>
<td>Only if <code>::wrapper::before</code> / <code>::wrapper::after</code> are allowed.</td>
<td>Yes.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><code>::contents</code></th>
<td>Mostly not.</td>
<td>-</td>
<td>Only for use-cases without <code>::before</code> nor <code>::after</code></td>
<td>Mostly not.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><code>::wrapper</code></th>
<td>Mostly not.</td>
<td>Only for use-cases without <code>::before</code> nor <code>::after</code></td>
<td>-</td>
<td>Mostly not.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><code>::outer-before</code> / <code>::outer-after</code></th>
<td>Mostly not.</td>
<td>Yes, with <code>display: contents</code> and <code>::before</code> / <code>::after</code>.</td>
<td>Only if <code>::wrapper::before</code> / <code>::wrapper::after</code> are allowed.</td>
<td>-</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
IMO the best and most complete one is `::contents`. `::wrapper` may be good enough if pseudo-element nesting is allowed, but this would allow generating arbitrarily-deep structures which I suspect will be more difficult to implement.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2960#issuecomment-410536775 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2018 17:57:30 UTC