- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 12:26:47 +0200
- 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