I prefer Daniel's proposal here: > A given element is said to match a complex selector when it exists a list of elements individually matching each corresponding compound selector in the complex selector, **each pair of consecutive elements** in that list matches the combinator separating the two corresponding compound selectors better than > A given element is said to match a complex selector when there exists a list of elements, each matching a corresponding compound selector in the complex selector, **with their relationships matching the combinators between them**, and with the given element matching the last compound selector. The latter is less precise and can seem over-constrained, e.g. if you have `a + b c`, one may think that the elements matched by `a` and `c` must match both combinators between them (i.e. the element matched by `c` should be both the next sibling and a descendant of `a`, which is not possible). And I would also say "matching **the** corresponding" instead of "matching **a** corresponding". -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2240#issuecomment-361947562 using your GitHub accountReceived on Wednesday, 31 January 2018 14:26:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:23 UTC