Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] [WebComponents] Custom state pseudo class (#428)

I was predominately looking to ensure that `:state(x):state(y)` and its proper syntax was outlined very clearly. In that you don't get much from `:valid:valid` and in that some comments here and in other conversations had implied `:state(x y)` may have been possible. Having a difinitive "this is what can be done and how you'd do it" will be a great resource to point people.

As for combined examples, it seems easy to assume that things in the realm of `:hover` and `:focus`, or even the positional `:first-child`, should clearly work out of the box without directly stating, but including coverage for pseudo-elements `:state(x)::before` and relational selectors `:not(:state(x))` might prevent confusion down the road.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/428#issuecomment-543179253