- From: Mike Bremford via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:08:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
It sounds like you're describing the nearest descendent in document order, is that right? So if you had two elements that matches `.wrapper > div > .child`, only the first one would match? ```css .wrapper > * > :nth-child(1 of .child), .wrapper > * > :not(.child) > :nth-child(1 of .child), .wrapper > * > :not(.child) > :not(.child) > :nth-child(1 of .child), ... and so on, depending on how deep your structure goes. ``` Not terribly elegant, but better than trying to evaluate ```css .wrapper > * > :nth-child(1 of .child:not(:has(.child))) ``` which I think might be equivalent, although I really don't fancy proving that. Also, you probably don't have `:has()`! -- GitHub Notification of comment by faceless2 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4940#issuecomment-612044124 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 April 2020 14:08:25 UTC