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 01:08] – [Error Handling in Selectors, aka Breaking Pages by Making Them Work] florian | faq [2018/03/15 15:33] – [Selectors that Depend on Layout] Explanation of why :hover isn't as bad. tabatkins | ||
---|---|---|---|
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, |