- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:18:57 -0500
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt at apple.com> wrote:
>> Do you actually mean try out both ":scope" tacked on to the end of the rule as well as ":scope " (note the space indicating a descendant selector) tacked on to the beginning?
>>
>> So for example, #foo { } would turn into #foo:scope, :scope #foo { } thus allowing it to match either the scope or a descendant of the scope?
>
> No, it's an if/else. "#foo" would be equivalent to ":scope #foo". On
> the other hand, "#foo :scope" would be unaltered.
>
> ~TJ
So you're suggesting it would be impossible for a rule to match the scope itself without the author having to explicitly qualify it with :scope? That seems very unintuitive.
dave
(hyatt at apple.com)
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 14:18:57 UTC