- From: Mason Freed via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2025 21:39:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Yeah, these naming patterns aren't quite consistent with what we use elsewhere. That doesn't surprise me! Thanks for the help with suggestions. > * `:interest-invoker` (matching any interest) and `:interest-invoker(partial | total)`? (`total` keyword just a guess) I like both. I assume the second suggestion was `:interest-invoker-partial` ? If so, I think that works. > * `:interest-target` and `:interest-target(partial | total)`, same meanings Those were my initial stabs at names too, but the confusing thing is that the attribute is called `interesttarget`. So it might be confusing to have `:interest-target` match *not* on the element with `interesttarget`, but instead on the *target* of that element. Having said that, I'm also ok with this naming. Because I really don't like `:interest-target-target`. > Do we want to expose a state keyword for things that are _potentially_ interest invokers/targets, but that are currently without any interest? Or is that ambiguous when interest isn't being shown? Hmm. I think that can be handled with `[interesttarget]:not(:interest-invoker)`, no? Perhaps you just mean it might be convenient to have a shorthand for that? -- GitHub Notification of comment by mfreed7 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12154#issuecomment-2848165222 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 2 May 2025 21:39:54 UTC