- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2026 20:31:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> That is a lame excuse for bad design. That's not how we talk to each other in the W3C. Please edit your post, and do not do that again. > nth-item(random(), ...) (or similar) would not have that problem. It's effectively identical in terms of the parsing shape (you're required to pass an index first, same as being required to pass a cache-key first), except worse in practice since you have to manually write out the length of the list. --- I don't understand what your proposal in the latter half is. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13601#issuecomment-4013981547 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 6 March 2026 20:31:42 UTC