- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:47:23 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/06/2013 03:27 AM, Simon Sapin wrote: > Le 06/04/2013 01:05, Brian Kardell a écrit : >> Let me make a couple of points (some of them restated from post and article): >> - These are only significant (useful/necessary) if all of them can >> take complex selectors >> - :matches and :not are already in there and they probably map to >> two of these, but neither takes complex selectors yet. > > I agree that complex selectors and :not() and :matches() would be great > to have. Apparently so does Tab, who edited Selectors 4 just two days > ago to add that. It was always intended for :matches() to take complex selectors. They weren't included only because of concerns about whether anyone would implement them. (Btw, technically, those edits were drafted by both of us; Tab's just the one who usually runs the computer when we're pair-editing together. If you see a bunch of emails signed TJ+fantasai, it's because we're drafting it (and any concurrent spec edits) together!) ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 17:47:52 UTC