- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 20:06:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Shouldn't this be about :host(:has(...))? No. As I said in the initial comment, `:host(:has(...))` is a separate thing that's already well-defined. This is about `:host:has(...)`. > I think :host:has() should generally not work to be consistent with other selectors like :host:nth-child(...) (which IIRC doesn't match) It's not clear if you've read [my later comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10693#issuecomment-2271806733) giving a more thorough explanation for why I think `:host:has()` is fine to match. If you have read that, could you elaborate on how you disagree? (And correct, `:host:nth-child()` does not match. While it would not be *problematic* for it to do so, since it only has access to the information in the shadow tree and thus always sees the host element as a lone sibling, it wouldn't be *useful* for it to do so either, for the exact same reason.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10693#issuecomment-2276565781 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2024 20:06:34 UTC