Ian Hickson wrote: > > Maybe the proposal should be changed to imply the # at the start instead > of at the end (so :matches() without # becomes equivalent to :has()). Wouldn't that make :has() completely redundant? As in, we only need to introduce the one piece of new syntax instead of two? Is there anything you could put in the parentheses of :has() that would not be identical in this version of :matches()? I always thought the name "has" was awkward to describe it's proposed purpose, and "matches" seems much better to me. (I'd also propose that syntax like :matches(+ foo) NOT be allowed - so that whatever is in the parentheses must be a self-contained selector, like :matches(# + foo). The behavior of :matches without a # would be equivalent to adding "#" AND a 'descendent selector' (the space in "a b {foo}"), not just a "#", at the beginning.) Stuart. -- Stuart Ballard, Programmer NetReach - Internet Solutions (215) 283-2300, ext. 126 http://www.netreach.com/Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 15:11:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:21 GMT