^_^ You know... with that kind of rationale, adding a class for the canonical namespace name sounds valid as well. ie: ns-user, etc...
Actually... on that note... if you were to add that feature as a tag separate of the ns-talk/ns-subject, then the current way of checking for special when we check for talk or subject would be invalid. That would be because the addition of the ns name (making it lowercase would be good since it's more of an id) would end up throwing a ns-special in there.
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) of: -The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com) --It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com) --The ElectronicMe project (http://electronic-me.org) --Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org) -And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG) --Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com) --Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
roan.kattouw@home.nl wrote:
Bug 15079, 'Add class="ns-talk" / "ns-subject" to <body>', also added ns-special for special pages.
Don't we add classes like ns-2 already? In that case, wouldn't ns--1 suffice?
Hypothetically yes, however as specials are a separate class from subject/talk (they have no such talk split), it makes reasonable since to treat them distinct here -- also it's human readable unlike ns--1 which is just yucky.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkifXo4ACgkQwRnhpk1wk47FXgCeJOF0aegmxiAefOCebbKit5m4 hHAAoMcmwXiOmI85o+FJNF+8+REOqw8l =Nxyr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----