- From: Una Kravets via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 15:11:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here -- I've used the `:not(:empty)` pattern a few times, so I feel like a `:has-child` is generally a good idea. I do agree that it would probably be better to specify that child with `:has` though as a better specification means. In that case, how would `:has-child` provide something that `:not(:empty)` and `:has` do not? -- GitHub Notification of comment by una Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4903#issuecomment-612071859 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 April 2020 15:11:37 UTC