- From: Eric Willigers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 03:15:29 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I agree that we could minimize the Web-compat risk by saying that error recovery only applies if two or more selectors are supplied. `:nth-last-child(:nonsense)` is invalid `:nth-child(:nonsense, :enabled)` is `:nth-child(:enabled)` `:not(:nonsense, :gibberish)` is `*` `:is(:nonsense, :gibberish)` is `:not(*)`. This would have the following benefits: * `:not(.)` and `:nth-child(.)` and `:nth-last-child(.)` with a single selector have the same semantics as in Selectors 3. * We have error recovery for `:is(...)` and `:where(...)` and `:has(...)` * `:not(...)` and `:is(:not(...))` and `:not(:is(...))` are always equivalent, same for `:nth-child` and `:nth-last-child` As a minor variation, preserving the same benefits, we could say that error recovery only applies if at least one of the selectors is valid. Then `:not(:nonsense, :gibberish)` is invalid. This might be easier to teach, and avoid developers' confusion when they see an introduced `:not(*)` in a Developer Tool that hasn't preserved raw text. -- GitHub Notification of comment by ewilligers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3264#issuecomment-441148706 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 23 November 2018 03:15:31 UTC