Re: [CSSWG] Resolutions 2008-03-04 and 2008-03-11

On Mar 13, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> One thing that seems very wrong with the spec is this part;
> :nth-child(10n-1)  /* represents the 9th, 19th, 29th, etc, element */
> :nth-child(10n+9)  /* Same */
> In other words, if b is negative then b = (a + b)
> (the negative b is added to a, thus reducing it by the absolute  
> value of b; this now positive value is then substituted for the  
> previously negative value in the equation) .
> To my way of thinking, the two rules shown above should not be the  
> same. Let me explain...

OK, after re-reading the e-mail I sent this morning, and thinking  
about it more, I would say the most salient point is this:

The two rules above would be equivalent if the "10n" part could count  
up higher than the total number of elements prior to doing the  
subtraction. But it would be more powerful if a*n was limited to only  
counting as high as the total number of child elements, because then  
you could use it to exclude one or more elements at the end. Nothing  
is gained by having the two rules above give the exact same results.

Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 07:05:34 UTC