- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 06:38:57 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> But maybe you're right and the whole >> pseudo-class/pseudo-element distinction is rather meaningless. But at >> least pseudo-class til date made some sense. > > I still don't understand what you find wrong with this. It's not that > ":host() [can] match an element that cannot otherwise be matched", > it's that the host element element is featureless, save for the > ability to match :host. (That's the definition of a featureless > element - it's allowed to specify particular things that can still > match it.) In other words, it's not :host that's magical, it's the > host element itself that's magical. So :host:hover would not work? I guess you would have to spell that :host(:hover)? Because although it does not have features, it has features inside the parenthesis? Was this concept introduced for other scenarios or just for :host? Seems like a very weird rationalization. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 04:39:22 UTC