On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:20 AM, Francois Remy wrote: > From: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net> >> On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:01 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >>> Second: >>> >>> Consider these two selectors: >>> >>> p >>> { >>> border: none; >>> } >>> >>> html:with-child(a:hover) p >>> { >>> border: 2em; >>> } >>> >>> and markup: >>> >>> <html> >>> <p><a href="*">sample</a></p> >>> </html> >> As far as I can tell, nothing would happen there, because the HTML >> element does not have an anchor ("A" element) as a child. It only >> has one as a descendant, and I thought "with-child" referred to >> immediate children only, not grandchildren. > > No with-child refers to grandchildren too. > But it's possible that the name is bad choosen. > > Fremy Well then, I think we should consider single generation version of this idea, especially if it will make it faster. Most of the use cases involve just children, not all descendants. In fact, I think it would be more useful if it had the more limited scope of just immediate children. Consider the following: div:with-child(code) { border:2px solid #999; background-color:beige; } div:with-child(code):before { content:"See Code:"; } I would only want this on DIVs that surrounded the Code block directly, not on any old DIV that happened to be an ancestor of the code block. I can really see no use case for a "has-child" pseudo- class to look at all descendants.Received on Friday, 25 July 2008 15:57:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:10 GMT