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

Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors3] better terminology for ~ sibling combinator?

From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 20:25:03 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-301904695-1494966302-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

Yes, that is what "no substantive change" means :)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by svgeesus
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1382#issuecomment-301904695 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2017 20:25:09 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub: "Re: [csswg-drafts] Please define how the various box tree fixups interact"
Previous message: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub: "Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors3] better terminology for ~ sibling combinator?"
In reply to: L. David Baron via GitHub: "[csswg-drafts] [selectors3] better terminology for ~ sibling combinator?"
Next in thread: fantasai via GitHub: "Closed: [csswg-drafts] [selectors3] better terminology for ~ sibling combinator?"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:12 UTC