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

Re: [selectors4][naming] Renaming :matches() (was: Proposal: Logical Combinators / Sets)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:10:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDApLXVV9nuzOa5HQ9BaF4EQxg61Cr5NpsK3_xRO4vSiHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:28:35PM +0100, Simon Sapin wrote:
>> We discussed this on the conf call today. :any() is great when there
>> are multiple arguments:
>>   some > long + combinator ~ chain:any(.foo, .bar)
>> But one counter-argument that convinced me is that it doesn’t make
>> any sense with a single argument. This can be useful when that
>> selector contains combinators:
>>   ol li:matches(aside li)
> Ooc, what's the reason that the above rule is (apparently quite deliberately)
> invalid in the current selectors4 ?  Just wondering whether that reason might
> be relevant to what the matches-any pseudo-class should be called.  E.g. I
> wonder whether there's a chance that we'll end up with a different name or
> syntax for combinators anyway, in which case the above argument might be moot.

Because complex selectors are more expensive than compound selectors.
(A lot more, afaik.)

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 00:11:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:23 UTC