- From: Byungwoo Lee via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 05:30:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Or, given that the `:has()` grammar definition accepts a list of relative selectors as argument, I think we could ask this a little differently: "Should a relative selector be a complex selector?" Then it seems that this edit proposal in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5093#issuecomment-1344819653 may cover the `:host(:has(section))` case. > The [=logical combination pseudo-classes=] > are allowed anywhere that any other [=pseudo-classes=] are allowed, > but pass any restrictions to their arguments. > (For example, if only [=compound selectors=] are allowed, > then only [=compound selectors=] are valid within an '':is()''.) Based on the assumption that the above statement will be applied to the `:has()` as well, I think we can say that`:host(:has(section))` will be invalid because the relative selector `section` in the `:has()` is not a compound selector but a complex selector. -- GitHub Notification of comment by byung-woo Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10756#issuecomment-2295700369 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 19 August 2024 05:30:12 UTC