(12/03/29 17:56), François REMY wrote: > Most of your proposal just doesn't make sense. > > Each pseudoclass has a different meaning, how can you say "I just want > one of them"? Seriously, why would you apply the same styling for a > :hover element, a :invalid and a :valid element ? Matching any > parametric pseudoclass is also pure non-sense. :*(xxx) would match > :any(:matches(xxx),:not(xxx)) which mean all elements. Agreed. But perhaps there might be use cases of *::*, which should include all elements and pseudo-elements all together, esp. for non-inheritable properties, although I haven't thought of anything that I would truly consider useful. (If 'image-orientation' were not changed to be inheritable. *::* { image-orientation: from-exif; } might be useful maybe? Would *::* { clear: both; } be any of use? What about *::* { box-decoration-break: clone; } ? ) Cheers, KennyReceived on Thursday, 29 March 2012 20:37:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:53 GMT