Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values] Proposal: add sibling-count() and sibling-index() (#4559)

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