[css-pseudo-4] Define ::picker() #10865
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was discussed here: w3c#10440
dbaron
reviewed
Sep 10, 2024
css-pseudo-4/Overview.bs
Outdated
|
|
||
| The ''::picker()'' pseudo-element only matches when the <a>originating | ||
| element</a> supports <a>base appearance</a> and has a popup picker. The | ||
| specified <<ident>> must also match the unique picker name of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should probably be defining the term "unique picker name" (for other specs to reference), unless you think it should be defined somewhere else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done. Do you think that HTML should define the mapping?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think HTML should define it.
dbaron
approved these changes
Sep 17, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This was discussed here: #10440