W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css-selectors] Proposal: Logical Combinators / Sets

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 12:26:47 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB120-DS2143B01AA596170F86FCD5A5DB0@phx.gbl>
To: "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Cc: "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
> My point is that Brian original request can be answered by allowing 
> complex selectors in :not() and :matches(), without adding redundant 
> pseudo-classes.

Yes, this is true and was already stated earlier in the thread, I think ;-)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Mar/0259.html

I think the thread's first point is more about relaxing the complexity 
constraints on the existing pseudos than creating new ones.



> That’s why a "one argument" :matches() is useful (assuming the "complete" 
> profile), it provides grouping.

Oh, yes, I don't care much about the naming, ":matches" seems pretty good to 
me.

Indeed, if you use ":matches" as a name, it feels more familiar to use 
juxtaposition to have the 'and' operator than if you use ':any-of'.



> > .list .item:any-of(  .start,  :all-of(.start ~ *, :not(.end ~ *))   )
> .list .item:matches(.start, :matches(.start ~ *):not(.end ~ *))

Indeed, you can just juxtaposate the :matches to create an AND, that's 
probably good enough for most purposes. 
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 10:27:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC