- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:51:07 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 23, 2008, at 9:21 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Stephen's original suggestion may require that, yes (though I doubt >> it in an intelligent implementation). But the :matches pseudoclass >> does *not* require this at all. You would hold a reference to the >> main element and then walk down in the ordinary matching pattern. > > This is talking about the easy problem: matching the selector to > nodes. That part is indeed.... easy. > > The hard problem is deciding which parts of the DOM tree need to > have style reresolution done when a DOM mutation happens. That's the same situation as with adjacent sibling combinators, isn't it? If you mutate the previous sibling, then you have to do style reresolution on a separate branch of the DOM tree. I would think it would be easier with a "has-child" pseudo-class, as it s dealing with elements in the same branch.
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 16:51:55 UTC