3

I've only just discovered the tag. Pseudo elements in CSS are defined by the CSS Generated Content specification, which uses the URL path /css-content-* (where * is the version).

We already have a tag, but unfortunately this has significantly fewer questions than does, meaning I am unable to request a tag synonym.

Despite having fewer questions, "css-content" better reflects what these are and conforms to how other tags on CSS are written (, , , etc.)

Could please be made into a synonym of ?

4
  • Looks like we also have a pseudo-class tag which could probably be merged with css-selectors. Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 9:53
  • Related, but deleted, question on SO: Why ::first-letter / ::first-line / ::selection are called pseudo-elements? (it's heavily downvoted, but it's actually a good question, and the premise of this very meta question shows) Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 11:41
  • @Stephen Why did you retag this question from [support] to [discussion]? Aside from the utter triviality of such an edit, it is well established that synonym requests are actually support requests, since that is effectively a moderator-only feature. (Technically, anyone with a score of 5 or more in the tag can propose a synonym, but we all know that doesn’t really work in practice. And even if it did, support would still be an appropriate tag, since this is literally a request for assistance with one of the site’s features.) Commented Jun 25, 2019 at 3:11
  • @CodyGray Sorry about that, I thought it was mistagged but evidently I was mistaken. Why: I'm helping out in the Trogdor chat room on pass 2 of outstanding burnination and synonym requests. I have been suitably advised. Commented Jun 25, 2019 at 3:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

Pseudo elements in CSS are defined by the CSS Generated Content specification

Incorrect. Pseudo-elements are defined in section 2 of CSS1, section 5.12 of CSS2, section 7 of css3-selectors, and split into two level 4 modules: the syntax in section 3.6 of selectors-4 and the pseudo-elements themselves in css-pseudo-4.

The generated content section of CSS2 and css-content-3 define the ::before and ::after pseudo-elements, but only those. They don't define pseudo-elements as a whole.

Questions about the content property should be tagged , and questions about ::before, ::after, or any other pseudo-element for that matter should be tagged . The two tags don't have to be mutually exclusive — if a question is about the use of content in ::before or ::after specifically then there is nothing wrong with adding both tags. But they mean different things, and are therefore not synonyms.

3
  • That's fair enough. If not css-content, why do we need separate tags for pseudo-classes and pseudo-elements when they can be categorised under css-selectors? Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 11:31
  • @James Donnelly: You know, I find [pseudo-class] kind of unnecessary too. But pseudo-elements are more than just the selectors. Many pseudo-element questions aren't really about selector syntax but the functionality of the pseudo-elements themselves. Like the one about the content property - which is about the property, not the selector syntax. Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 11:34
  • @James Donnelly: Then again, every pseudo-element is different - categorising all pseudo-element questions under [pseudo-element] seems odd, now that I think about it. Commented Mar 24, 2017 at 11:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.