- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:43:23 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Just because something *can* be implemented with `:has()`, doesn't mean it's equivalent to `:has()`; `:has()` is a very big hammer and can pound a *lot* of nails. ^_^ This is just a request for "first descendant matching a selector", which yeah, has been a common request over the years. @radogado's original example is a somewhat novel showing of it, I think (usually it's "I have nested components, and I want to select the nearest one only". Looks like it was last discussed [in 2015 on the mailing list](https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0298.html). The simpler form that's just about nesting isn't too bad. `.foo /closest/ .bar .baz` would be matched as: > 1. Is this element a `.baz`? If no, bail. > 2. If so, walk the ancestors until I find a `.bar`. If none, bail. > 3. Continue walking the ancestors, looking for either a `.bar` or `.foo`. If I find a `.bar`, bail. If I find nothing, bail. > 4. Yay, the element matched! In other words it matches just like a normal descendant combinator, just checking the compound selectors on either side of the combinator, rather than just the one on the left. Slightly more expensive, but not a huge deal. It also might slightly widen the space of mutations to watch for to indicate you need to rerun styling on a subtree. But the more general form that @radogado opened with where the non-matched element might be in a different subtree than the matched one would be *substantially* more expensive, and I suspect would kick us out of the realm of possibility. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4940#issuecomment-612164114 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 April 2020 18:43:25 UTC