W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

Re: [CSS21] selector's specificity issues.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:06:36 -0700
Message-ID: <000d01c46516$5034a5d0$eb01000a@AFedoniouk>
To: <www-style@w3.org>, "Adam Kuehn" <akuehn@nc.rr.com>

> Why should ul>li trump li:first-child?

From mathematical point of view:

Lets say we have '@none' as a selector part.

Then "li:first-child" will be equivalent of
@none + li

And  li:last-child (hypothetical)  will be
li + @none

Conclusion: li:first-child has the same weight as "XX+YY" case.

Idea: to use prefix/postfix minus for that  "-li" (first li) and "li-" (last
li)

> Why should td+td trump td.class?

It does not "trump", it just has the same weight as
td[colspan=2] has the same weight as td.class

The power of the set [1] constituted by strong dom relation
attributes/designators ( + and >) is
the same as  XX[attribute] set's power.

[1] http://www.fact-index.com/p/po/power_set.html

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com



From: "Adam Kuehn" <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
>
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>
> >case "UL LI":
> >    d = 2
> >
> >case "UL>LI":
> >    c = 1
> >    d = 2
>
> Why should ul>li trump li:first-child?  Why should td+td trump
> td.class?  In order to make a workable addition, I think you'd have
> to come up with something a bit more complex than what you have there
> (and then get implementors to agree that it was a good idea to change
> a working algorithm).
>
> I just don't see how the benefits outweigh the downside.
>
> -- 
>
> -Adam Kuehn
>
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 14:07:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:31 GMT