Re: [selectors4] specificity of :matches as ancestor

• From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
• Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:49:41 +1000
• To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
• Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
• Message-id: <20130419014941.GA30943@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 06:37:04PM -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> Ultimately, it's *exactly* as bad as unfolding the :matches() out of
> the selector.  Yes, it's combinatorial in complexity.  But that's the
> whole point of :matches() - to hide that complexity in an
> easy-to-write form.

If :matches retained its previous fixed max-of-args specificity, then it
wouldn't be combinatorial in complexity.

The trade-off is that occasionally, an author would decide that the best way of
getting the right declarations to apply is to use the combinatorical expansion.

pjrm.

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 01:50:05 UTC