- From: Loirooriol via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:25:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
More nitpicking, what I said above is something like
E ∈ subList(A, B, inclusiveSiblings(E) ∩ match(S))
I don't like it much neither, because E is defined as belonging to the sublist, but the sublist depends on E. Not wrong because we know it's a sublist of elements, but I would prefer defining E in its domain and then impose the restriction: (if someone is interested, see [Russell's paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox))
E ∈ Elements | E ∈ subList(A, B, inclusiveSiblings(E) ∩ match(S))
In English I would say
> The :nth-child(An+B [of S]?) pseudo-class notation represents an element among its An+Bth inclusive siblings that match the selector list S.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1292#issuecomment-297882674 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 28 April 2017 01:26:05 UTC