This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| faq [2018/02/03 00:56] – florian | faq [2020/07/29 20:05] – [Adding more named colors] florian | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Frequently Asked Questions ====== | ====== Frequently Asked Questions ====== | ||
| - | ===== Styling < | + | ===== Styling < |
| === Question === | === Question === | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| - | ===== Selectors that depend | + | ===== Selectors that Depend |
| === Question === | === Question === | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| then we can never add another selector that would depend on other properties ever. | then we can never add another selector that would depend on other properties ever. | ||
| Which one goes first? | Which one goes first? | ||
| + | Something that we can only do once, ever, | ||
| + | and that will affect our ability to evolve CSS in the future, | ||
| + | is probably a bad idea for the language. | ||
| Yet another way you could try to remediate all this | Yet another way you could try to remediate all this | ||
| Line 147: | Line 150: | ||
| Instead of doing all of this, so far we've just short-circuited the entire debate and disallowed selectors from being affected by properties. | Instead of doing all of this, so far we've just short-circuited the entire debate and disallowed selectors from being affected by properties. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Why Doesn' | ||
| + | |||
| + | A common retort to the above is "we already have :hover, which has circularity issues, why can't we add this?" | ||
| + | |||
| + | First, the fact that we've made one mistake isn't an argument for repeating the mistake. :hover *is* problematic in implementations, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Second, and more important, the circularity of :hover is very " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Furthermore, | ||
| === References === | === References === | ||
| Line 173: | Line 186: | ||
| it is to browse the web as it exists, | it is to browse the web as it exists, | ||
| not as we would like it to be. | not as we would like it to be. | ||
| - | Whether authors correctly used well designed features, | + | Whether authors correctly used well-designed features, |
| - | correctly used poorly designed features, | + | correctly used poorly-designed features, |
| used features in creative or weird ways, | used features in creative or weird ways, | ||
| or even accidentally depended on some bizarre behavior, | or even accidentally depended on some bizarre behavior, | ||
| Line 233: | Line 246: | ||
| #sensible .selector, | #sensible .selector, | ||
| syntax = !error, | syntax = !error, | ||
| - | :: | + | : |
| background: red; | background: red; | ||
| } | } | ||
| Line 240: | Line 253: | ||
| Because of how selectors are parsed, this is not applied at all. | Because of how selectors are parsed, this is not applied at all. | ||
| Wouldn' | Wouldn' | ||
| - | also apply in up to date browsers to elements that match : | + | also apply in up to date browsers to elements that match '' |
| and just skip the syntax error? | and just skip the syntax error? | ||
| Line 250: | Line 263: | ||
| == more details == | == more details == | ||
| - | However, this particular case it interesting. | + | However, this particular case it interesting. If we did this change, all previously valid pages would continue to work, so what's the problem? |
| - | + | ||
| - | If we did this change, all previously valid pages would continue to work, so what's the problem? | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | For new content, that behavior would be be nice, | + | |
| - | but for existing content it would be a huge problem. | + | |
| It turns out that since mistyping a selector is an easy mistake to make, | It turns out that since mistyping a selector is an easy mistake to make, | ||
| Line 268: | Line 276: | ||
| Effectively, | Effectively, | ||
| - | the page, which has been fixed through | + | many pages which have been fixed through |
| - | now depends | + | now depend |
| More often than not, “randomly“ changing the background, | More often than not, “randomly“ changing the background, | ||
| the size, the borders, or the display value of some elements in the page will break it badly. | the size, the borders, or the display value of some elements in the page will break it badly. | ||
| Line 280: | Line 288: | ||
| TBD | TBD | ||
| + | ===== Adding more named colors ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Question === | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can we add new named colors to CSS? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Answer === | ||
| + | |||
| + | No. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == more details == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The built-in set of named colors in CSS is weird and bad, and we keep them mainly for legacy interop reasons. There' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Naming colors can be done in stylesheets using custom properties. It is not likely we will ever add more names to the built-in set. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === References === | ||
| + | |||
| + | * https:// | ||
| + | * https:// | ||