- From: Emilio Cobos Álvarez via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:04:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
emilio has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:
== [selectors] Is it intentional that :has(:is()) is different from :has()? ==
This means that `:has` and nesting don't play super-well, and it's a bit unintuitive.
Test-case:
```html
<!DOCTYPE html>
<div id="outer">
<div id="middle">
<div id="inner"></div>
</div>
</div>
<pre><script>
function w(el, selector) {
document.writeln(`#${el.id}.matches(${selector}) = ${el.matches(selector)}`);
}
w(middle, ":has(#outer #inner)");
w(middle, ":has(:is(#outer #inner))");
</script></pre>
```
Maybe we shouldn't allow `:has()` to escape its scope?
cc @tabatkins @lilles @byung-woo @dshin-moz
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9422 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2023 13:05:00 UTC