- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 21:47:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
If the relative selector `::before` should be treated as `*::before`, then `:has(::before)` should be treated as `:has(*::before)` (and analogous for all pseudo-elements). But #7463 resolved: > allow future pseudo-elements to define that they are valid if useful/possible. And the most common usecase seems to check if the element itself has the pseudo-element (and not some random descendant). So the only options seem: 1. Let `&` or `:scope` inside `:has()` refer to the anchor element. This increases invalidation complexity and then it's difficult to implement (#7211) 2. Add `:>` as a pseudo-element combinator (#7346) 3. Let `::before` and `*::before` have different meanings in relative selectors. 1 and 2 are hypothetical so I'm assuming 3. Thus `::before` and `*::before` can also have different meanings in nesting. Should they? I dunno, I don't use Sass either, so allowing relative nested selectors that don't start with an explicit combinator is completely confusing to me. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7979#issuecomment-1301344992 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2022 21:47:16 UTC