W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors] sibling and ::after selector in one

From: SelenIT via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 20:17:54 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-350502725-1512850673-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
IMO, the equivalence of `::after` and `*::after` is quite clearly implied by the following text about the universal selector:

In [CSS Selectors Level 3 Recommendation](https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#universal-selector):

> If a universal selector represented by * (i.e. without a namespace prefix) is not the only component of a sequence of simple selectors selectors or is immediately followed by a pseudo-element, then the * may be omitted and the universal selector's presence implied.

In [CSS Selectors Level 4 Editor's Draft](https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#the-universal-selector):

> Unless an element is [featureless](https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#featureless), the presence of a universal selector has no effect on whether the element matches the selector.

The `:has()` selector [is there](https://drafts.csswg.org/selectors-4/#relational) in the current CSS Selectors Level 4 proposal, so it is still the best current candidate for becoming standard (although personally I am not a big fan of the 'static selectors profile' concept and am rather skeptical that this ever gets implemented).

GitHub Notification of comment by SelenIT
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2094#issuecomment-350502725 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 9 December 2017 20:18:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:21 UTC