- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:26:05 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I disagree with "generally not very useful": - `:has()` + `:not()`: something like `:has(#foo:not(.bar))` seems very useful to me. - `:has()` + `:is()`: useful for complex selectors, e.g. `.foo:has(.bar .baz)` requires `.bar` to be a descendant of `.foo`, but `.foo:has(:is(.bar .baz))` doesn't. Sure, I could rewrite it as ```css .foo:has(.bar .baz), .foo.bar:has(.baz), .bar .foo:has(.baz) ``` but in more complex cases the combinatorial explosion of cases can be cumbersome. - `:has()` + `:is()`: same `:has()` + `:has()` could have its uses but yeah, generally it seems less useful. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6952#issuecomment-1013315393 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 14 January 2022 17:26:07 UTC