- From: Adam Kuehn <akuehn@nc.rr.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:06:56 -0400
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > > Why should ul>li trump li:first-child? > >From mathematical point of view: You lost me. The rule as you proposed it would give ul>li a specificity of 0,0,1,2. You proposed no other changes that I saw, so li:first-child would have a specificity of 0,0,1,1 (as it does currently). I.e. ul>li wins. Similarly, you propose to give td+td a specificity of 0,0,1,2. With no other changes, td.class gets 0,0,1,1. Again, td+td trumps (read: "has a higher specificity than") td.class, unless I completely misread your post. If the rest of your post was trying to explain how to change your proposal to get them all to weigh the same, I didn't follow you. Can you rephrase in such a way as to be "not difficult to understand"? Oh, and don't forget about the case of td+td+td (to an arbitrary depth) which so far as I can see would still need to have a lower specificity that td.class to fit with expectations and, indeed, current actual usage. The only solution I can see would be to make a new specificity ordinal in between case c and case d in the current draft. I still don't see any compelling reason to do that. Explain again how the benefits outweigh the difficulties? -- -Adam Kuehn
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 15:15:42 UTC