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

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

From: Brian Kardell via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:02:03 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-408248919-1532642522-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> `:nil()` and `:zero()` seems to be the only ones where it will be clear "why we used this pseudo-selector". So they've got my vote.
@tzi - and `:nospecificity`

@Tyler-H FWIW, while I definitely share the sentiment that perpetual bikeshed isn't a good thing, it seems to me that part of why the WG has made no real decision is that none of the options seemed particularly great (at least this has been my feeling - kind of noncommittal/least worst).  Since then, I feel like some options that seem at least as good have been added.  From other conversations I am led to think that perhaps some other WG members feel this.  I think that updating the table and asking whether it is more valuable for the pseudo to be clear or extendable to including a numeric specificity seems valid and potentially helpful.  Perhaps the WG can resolve one way or another on that much at least and we can eliminate several items?

GitHub Notification of comment by bkardell
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-408248919 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2018 22:02:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:33 UTC