- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:01:00 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I mentioned this during the meeting and I'll repeat, I think it's important for this selector to be short and also for it to be clear about how it's different from `:matches()/:not()`. Subtly different names that imply subtly different behavior without actually implying the difference through their names are very confusing. I'm rather less concerned about extending to an arbitrary specificity level, it's reasonably likely that we never do that. Numbers for ordering are not the best, see e.g. BASIC and its goto statements, or tabindex if you want a more recent example. Ideally any solutions to specificity wrangling would incorporate some concept of higher level structures rather than numbers on the number line. `:zero()` and `:nil()` aren't great in many ways, but at least they fulfill the two criteria I mentioned: they're short, and they imply something about what makes them different from `:matches()`/`:not()`. Or `:is()/:not()` if we lived in an ideal world and could rename `:matches()`. :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-432283762 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2018 15:01:16 UTC