- From: Richard Gibson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 14:50:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> <code>:zero()</code> and <code>:nil()</code> 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 <code>:matches()</code>/<code>:not()</code>. Or <code>:is()/:not()</code> if we lived in an ideal world and could rename <code>:matches()</code>. :) @fantasai We may not live in an ideal world, but I think we do live in one that's close enough to introduce `:is()` and redefine `:matches()` as a deprecated alias of it. What do you think? -- GitHub Notification of comment by gibson042 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2143#issuecomment-433627117 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2018 14:50:50 UTC