- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:59:22 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20050127205922.GA5504@ridley.dbaron.org>
On Tuesday 2005-01-25 17:26 -0800, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > L. David Baron wrote: > >On Tuesday 2005-01-25 15:59 -0800, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > >>For example: > >><select> element (list box) is "focusable" element but its <options> are > >>not. Being in focus, <select> has one current item (option) which is > >>visually distinct from others. > >The selected option should probably match the :checked pseudo-class. A > >SELECT is logically pretty much the same thing as a radio group. > As discussed month ago in this list :checked corresponds to selected > state of an <option> > E.g. for <SELECT multiple> it matches any <option selected>. > In short, neither :selection nor :checked cannot be used for :current > item. I'm not sure what the various specifications that describe :focus say about whether it can match multiple elements at once, but since focus is often described as a hierarchy, it seems like perhaps :focus should be able to match multiple elements simultaneously? Does that solve your problem? Then again, I'm not sure what the behavior that you're describing is. > >>I mean it is lack of "containment" selectors like: > >> > >>P < DIV - any <div> which contains <p> > >>* < DIV - non empty div > >>OPTION:focus < SELECT - select having option in focus. > >> > >> > > > >These have been discussed extensively on this list and one proposal was > >in early drafts of css3-selectors. Search for ":subject" (the one that > >was in css3-selectors), ":has", and ":matches". > > > >The problem is that they're all difficult to implement effeciently in > >the processing model used for CSS selectors (used via a function that > >maps (element, selector) -> boolean). > > > > > Proposed "8.3.2 Indirect adjacent combinator" [1] has the same > computational complexity > as ":has" or "<" - O(n). So, if we will allow to use first why not to > allow use second? It's most definitely not the same computational complexity. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004Mar/0192.html -David -- L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 21:00:05 UTC