- From: Michal Čaplygin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2023 13:15:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
BTW, IIUC current proposal suggests that `sibling-index()` of the first child will be `1`, right? Are everybody OK calling "`nth-child`-ness" starting at `1` **"index"** [1]?
And also, is the consensus about mechanism for **"skipping"** items that it will leverage the `".. of"` notation:
I.e. to set for example `animation-delay` of "visible" (`:not([hidden])`) items to 0ms, 100ms, 200ms etc, we will do:
li {
animation-delay: calc( (sibling-index(of :not([hidden])) - 1) * 100ms );
}
Is it correct?
---
[1] "Index" being term that majority [citation needed] of modern programming languages use for zero-based notations? I have nothing against it, just liked how CSS avoided [2] the list-item-indices-start-at-one ("FORTRAN") camp with that clever naming of `nth-child`.
[2] If we forget about `z-index` that technically starts at "C"'s ("BCPL") zero, but is not list item "index" in a sense, since it can be negative.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by myfonj
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4559#issuecomment-1798485729 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2023 13:15:58 UTC