W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > August 2016

[csswg-drafts] [selectors] some inconsistent concepts and descriptions

From: WarGrey Gyoudmon Ju via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 08:21:26 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-169736304-1470471684-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
wargrey has just created a new issue for 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [selectors] some inconsistent concepts and descriptions ==
https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#syntax
https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#simple
https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors/#grammar

1. Are **pseudo elements** _simple elements_?

> Pseudo-elements do not exist independently in the tree: they are 
always bound to another element on the page, called their originating 
element.
> Syntactically, a pseudo-element immediately follows the compound 
selector representing its originating element. If this compound 
selector is omitted, it is assumed to be the universal selector *.

Only the grammar defines **pseudo elements** are _simple elements_, 
this is okay syntactically. Also, is it only one **pseudo element** 
that can be attached to the **originating element**? If it is not, do 
they share the same **originating element**(rather than, say, the 2nd 
one is the **originating element** of the 3rd one)?

2. **Pseudo classes** must follow the **elemental selector** if 
present.
This change is not mentioned in the grammar section.

Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/386 using your GitHub 
account
Received on Saturday, 6 August 2016 08:23:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:01 UTC