W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css4-selectors] Focused descendant pseudo class

From: Brice PARENT <brice@websailors.fr>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:03:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4F217964.4070708@websailors.fr>
To: www-style@w3.org
Le 26/01/2012 16:33, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com a écrit :
> 26.01.2012, 03:06, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>:
>> On 01/25/2012 02:34 PM, Brian Kardell wrote:
>>
>>>  ! Or $   ?
>>>
>>>  :-)
>> Something. Or other. :) The problem with $ was that it's often
>> used for variables, so people didn't like that for that reason,
>> which is fair. I don't have a particular preference of ASCII
>> character.
>>
>> ~fantasai
> Currently we probably have too many syntaxes that have similar meaning:
>
> 1. ':scope' in Selectors 4 (dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/ );
> 2. '!'  in Selectors 4 (dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/ );
> 3. '&' in CSS Hierarchies Module (dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-hierarchies/ ).
>
> Instead, we could use one ':this' pseudo-element. I've initially proposed this pseudo-element in a thread related to potential '@with' at-rule:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0371.html
>
> (':scope' may be considered as possible alternative for ':this', though use of ':scope' is questionable for me since it can be confusing when used in conjunction with HTML5 scoped stylesheets.)
>
Wouldn't this disallow the use of :this described in the linked page
about @rule?
In the examples with the @rule page, it seems like :this is to be
replaced by the content of @with, but the selector continues like it
always does, pointing to the last element.
Here, the :this would tell that even if the selector is continuing, this
is the element we want to be affected by the css rules.

Anyway, as the topic is not this one, but "Focused descendant pseudo
class", i would say that
form:matches(! > input:focus) input[submit] { display: none; }
could be really usefull. Even if the "!" was changed to anything else...

Quick question : if we can negate the content :matches with a "!", why
wouldn't that be possible to have :not(:matches()) or :matches(:not()) ?
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:04:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:49 GMT