- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:33:28 -0700
- To: "Brian J. Fink" <desertowl23@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, dbaron@dbaron.org
Brian J. Fink wrote: > Yes, I was just reading about that, and another one, :has() which > could have even more consiseness. Although I still favor my own > proposed syntax, I suppose the same thing could be accomplished with: > > selector1:has(selector2) > selector1:has(>selector2) Personal preferences aside, your syntax has the disadvantage of requiring an analogous set of punctuation to the combinators that we already have. There aren't that many punctuation characters that are easily typed, it makes more sense to reserve them for future combinators than to pair them up with existing combinators. (Also aside from parent-child, the pairing will be completely arbitrary => more rote memorization of random punctuation.) ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2008 03:34:05 UTC