W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2020

[csswg-drafts] [selectors] What is the reasoning for ignoring defaullt namespaces only on the subject for :is() / :where() / :not()? (#5684)

From: Emilio Cobos Álvarez via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:53:00 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-732571359-1603997578-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
emilio has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [selectors] What is the reasoning for ignoring defaullt namespaces only on the subject for :is() / :where() / :not()? ==
`:is()` / `:where()` / `:not()` have this sentence in them:

> Default namespace declarations do not affect the compound selector representing the subject of any selector within a :is() pseudo-class, unless that compound selector contains an explicit universal selector or type selector.

I kinda get why that may be useful for `:not()` and why you _might_ want it only on the rightmost compound. Though the behavior for `:is()` / `:where()` is a bit weirder, I feel like it'd be better to ignore the default namespace in the whole inner selector...

Or at least I don't see why you might want that behavior on `:is()` / `:where()`... And it'd be nice to make all three consistent (I don't have a strong opinion on the subject vs. whole selector for `:not()`, though it's better if they're implemented the same).

cc @andruud @tabatkins 

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5684 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2020 18:53:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:21 UTC