- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:48:19 -0700
- To: "Brian J. Fink" <desertowl23@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Brian J. Fink wrote:
> It is more verbose with multiple levels of parenthood. Compare:
>
> (((selector4)>selector3)>selector2)>selector1
No, that would be
(selector4) > selector3 > selector2 > selector1
I think an earlier proposal was to use ! in front of the selector, like this:
!selector4 > selector3 > selector2 > selector1
which I think is easier to type and understand (it's not a nesting idea,
it's a "mark this thing here" idea).
> to:
>
> selector1<selector2<selector3<selector4
>
> And you also must also account for situations such as the following:
>
> b^ol>li span.test:hover
>
> The above syntax is concise, clear, and easy to parse. But what would
> it look like in the alternative syntax?
I'm not sure what you meant, exactly. If you meant "a b that is {a descendant
of an li which is a child of an ol} and that has a span.test:hover as a
descendant" then
ol > li !b span.test:hover
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 23:48:56 UTC