- From: Roman Komarov via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:38:36 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I would totally welcome a non-chaining `:has-child()`. Of course, there are much more use cases for the `:has()`, but if `:has()` wouldn't be ever done due to performance constraints, then just a `:has-child()`, even non-chaining, would be such a powerful tool. Of course, you won't still have everything, and would need to think a bit more about HTML structure, but I'd say that most cases for `:has()` could be solved via `:has-child()`, and allowing developers to use this kind of thing would be very big. If the fear of “not powerful enough, not covers enough use cases” would deny this compromise, no one would win from it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kizu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3072#issuecomment-438995694 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2018 10:38:37 UTC