- From: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 12:40:11 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I totally agree with you, I first saw using negative indexnumbers in perl > and have loved the syntax ever since. However it dosn't really fit nicly > with the an+b synax, though it surly could be done. The following syntax > could be used: > :nth-child(-1..10) /* ten last children */ > :nth-child(-3n-1) /* same as 3n+1 (1,4,7...) but count from behind */ > :nth-child(-3n+1) /* same as 3n-1 (2,5,8...) but count from behind */ IMO, the last ten children should be expressed as :nth-child(-1..-10) This is more consistent and more logical. The range should trace along the numberline, starting at b and ending at c. It also allows you to use :nth-child(7n-2..1) to mean take every seventh, as well as two before and one after it - :nth-child(7n-2), :nth-child(7n-1), :nth-child(7n), :nth-child(7n+1) > > so counting would be done from behind if the *first* number is negative. > Unfortunatly the last two rules aren't very intuitive (but IMHO more logical > then the current meaning of -3n+1). > > You could also allow signs on the c constant which would also allow > selectors like > > :nth-child(5..-5) /* fifth child to fifth last child */ > > which the currently has to be done using either :not() or several rules > "undoing" each other. Only two - :nth-child(n+5):nth-child(-n-5) > However, what would a rule like :nth-child(-3n-1..10) mean? As I see it, :nth-child(-3n-1), :nth-child(-3n), :nth-child(-3n+1..10) ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 12:38:58 UTC