- From: SelenIT via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 20:17:54 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@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