- From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:38:17 +0300
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> Laurens Holst wrote:
>
>>I think that ::nth-last-child() should have never been added, it’s not
>>very useful anyway :).
>
> Where is that pseudo-element defined? AFAIK, there is only a
> pseudo-class with a similar name, but different syntax.
Are you really trying to say that you didn't understand that the
pseudo-class defined in [1] was meant? Or are you just nit-picking
the fact that there were two colons (:) instead of just one?
The point was that you cannot have incremental rendering with styles
like
tr:nth-last-child(-n+2) td
{
background: red;
}
And this was an argument against the claim that CSS has design
constract "Incremental rendering (no reflow)".
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#nth-last-child-pseudo
--
Mikko
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 08:38:26 UTC