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

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity”`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;mstange> Topic: [selectors4] Name the “functional pseudo-class like :matches() with 0 specificity”<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: Lea is not here, do we want to talk about it?<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: Anybody have anything to add to this discussion? There's no clear "this is definitely what we should do" resolution.<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> New suggestion: smoosh()<br>
&lt;Rossen> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-408128027<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Sorry, :smoosh()<br>
&lt;zcorpan> -webkit-appearance: smoosh<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: This takes a list of selectors of which any can match. Unlike the :matches selector it basically zeroes out the specificity: anything you put inside has a specificity of zero.<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: This gives you more control about which parts of the selector affect the specificity and which down.<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: The only question is what to name it.<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: Some of the suggestions didn't get any traction.<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: We don't have any suggestion that is clearly better than the other ones.<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: My concern with a lot of these is that it is not very clear for :if or :where why this is different from :matches.<br>
&lt;mstange> ... It's different because of the zero specificity, so the name should have something to do with that.<br>
&lt;mstange> franremy: Last time we had narrowed it down to three.<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: New ones were added after last time.<br>
&lt;mstange> franremy: We almost agreed on one of them last time, don't remember which one.<br>
&lt;mstange> franremy: Would prefer to not expand the length of the list of candidates.<br>
&lt;mstange> dbaron: To make progress, we need to say "Nobody leaves the room until we decide."<br>
&lt;ericwilligers> Last time: if vs where<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2018Jul/0027.html<br>
&lt;mstange> fantasai: Our resolution last time was to narrow the short list to :if and :where, and we added :nil and :zero.<br>
&lt;mstange> ... So we could choose between those.<br>
&lt;mstange> Rossen: if, where, nil, zero, quash<br>
&lt;mstange> Rossen: In that order, with if being 1 and quash being 5, go ahead and put in your preferred 3.<br>
&lt;mstange> ... In the order of preference<br>
&lt;fantasai> 1 = if, 2 = where, 3 = nil, 4 = zero, 5 = quash<br>
&lt;franremy> 1 2 ... 4 3 5<br>
&lt;iank_> 2, 5, 3<br>
&lt;fantasai> 5, 3, 4, 1, 2<br>
&lt;cbiesinger> 2, 1<br>
&lt;florian> 1, 2<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> 3, 2, 1<br>
&lt;heycam> 2, 1<br>
&lt;futhark> 2 3 5<br>
&lt;dbaron> 4 3 2 5 1<br>
&lt;fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1170<br>
&lt;ericwilligers> 2, 1, 4<br>
&lt;Rossen> 2, 1<br>
&lt;eae> 3 2 1<br>
&lt;melanierichards> 2<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> 2 4<br>
&lt;tantek> 4 3 5 :ns (no specificity)<br>
&lt;rachelandrew> 2, 1 , 3<br>
&lt;emilio> 3, 1<br>
&lt;Oriol> 1, 2, 4, but I would prefer any<br>
&lt;emilio> fantasai: lol<br>
&lt;bz> nsISelector<br>
&lt;bz> That's NS<br>
&lt;mstange> Rossen: A lot of votes for number 2 as the first choice<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> Why was `:is` dropped from the options?<br>
&lt;mstange> ... Resolve on :where?<br>
&lt;mstange> ... If anyone has a strong reason to change this, speak up now.<br>
&lt;mstange> Resolved: Name the selector :where<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-432303830 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2018 15:48:18 UTC