Am Freitag, 22. November 2013 23:28:38 UTC+1 schrieb Jeremy Ruston: > > I'm now extremely confused, I'm afraid. The proposal that I am making is > that we change the behaviour of @@ so that it always generates either a DIV > or SPAN to carry the class. > +1 except that I'd vote for just div.
> We would no longer support the old behaviour of @@ applying it's classes > to whatever elements it contains. > Okay. > There would be no @@@ under my proposal. > Okay. > I'm separately proposing a new syntax for applying a class to a list. > I don't see the need for it. So to keep it short: @@ changes its meaning in that it creates a div (don't create a span). Do we agree that the main purpose of @@ is to have some place we can apply css to? If we always create the same element, the CSS would be easier as we reliably always have that element type. And while we are at the css we can happily change the div's display attribute to behave like a span, can't we? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
