Re: [selectors4][css-syntax] Pseudo-elements vs. combinators

On Feb 5, 2014 8:26 PM, "Matthew Robb" <matthewwrobb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If we have a generic combinator using slashes then we can support ref
still `label /ref/ input` or something
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 08:04:46AM -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > > Crap... Yeah i don't know why i said  tilde i meant to say ` ... TIL
Don't
>> > > mail the list before you finish your first cup of coffee I guess.
>> >
>> > Heh, no problem.  Personally, I don't like backtick because it looks
>> > like a quote character.
>>
>> It could actually be used as a quote-like character, as in
>> dt `next` dd { break-before: avoid }.
>>
>> This would match at least one programming language (viz. Mercury) that
uses
>> paired backticks to allow user-defined infix operators (like A `union`
B).
>>
>>
>> Is there any support for  dt/following-sibling::dd { ... } ?
>>
>> Even if the '::' part is considered too reminiscent of pseudo-elements,
I think
>> we should consider
>>
>>   dt /following-sibling dd { ... }
>>
>> (while keeping in mind Tab's comment
>>
>> > Slashes were used for the ref combinator, though we're punting that
>> > and might not do it at all.
>>
>> ).
>>
>> And even if we reject slash, we should consider using the same names as
in
>> xpath wherever possible (e.g. ^following-sibling or whatever), so long as
>> the xpath combinator doesn't have some difference in semantics
sufficient to
>> cause "false friend" problems.
>>
>> pjrm.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Matthew Robb

But what sensible meaning could you give a combinator that can reach into
the shadow -and- do idref?