W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > January 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity”

From: SelenIT via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2018 07:59:03 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-354954105-1514966342-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@inoas, AFAIK, `:matches()` is not just "short-lived short-lived vendor implementation". It has been in the standard draft [for years](https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-selectors4-20110929/#matches) (although the definition has changed a little), and its shipped implementation, without any flag/prefix, [has existsed since mid-2015](https://webkit.org/blog/3615/css-selectors-inside-selectors-discover-matches-not-and-nth-child/) (deprecating the old vendor-specific `:-webkit-any()` implementation), and there is intent to implement it in Blink ([1](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/kqD_G4sxfZE), [2](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/219)). So there should be some really solid reasons to rename/alias it (IMO).

Hovewer, I agree with Tab that the potential confusion in meaning between `:matches()` and `:is()` is not a very important issue. So I'm also fine with the both options — either introducing `:is()` as a functional analog for `:matches()` that **i**gnores **s**pecificity (as currently specified), or "overloading" `:matches()` with an optional extra argument, without adding new pseudo classes at all.

GitHub Notification of comment by SelenIT
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-354954105 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2018 07:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:22 UTC