- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:44:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
So I guess you say `toggle()` would be redundant because e.g. ```css .list { list-style-type: toggle(disc, circle, "+ ", "> ", "* "); } ``` could be expressed as ```css :nth-descendant(6n+1 of .list) { list-style-type: disc } :nth-descendant(6n+2 of .list) { list-style-type: circle } :nth-descendant(6n+3 of .list) { list-style-type: "+ " } :nth-descendant(6n+4 of .list) { list-style-type: "> " } :nth-descendant(6n+5 of .list) { list-style-type: "* " } ``` But note that `toggle()` resolves depending on the inherited value, and the cascade is based on the flat tree. Presumably, `:nth-descendant()` wouldn't use the flat tree. This was one of the reasons to not deprecate `:focus-within` in #8357. This is not to say that `toggle()` can't be dropped, but I think it may be better to consider your feature by itself, and if accepted, discuss if `toggle()` is still useful or not afterwards. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9899#issuecomment-1926917699 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 5 February 2024 12:44:23 UTC