- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:25:46 -0700
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Philip TAYLOR wrote: > > > Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > >> :has-child - element has single child. >> :has-children - element has at least one child. > >> E:has-child-of-type(T) - matches element that has precisely one >> immediate child of type T. >> E:has-children-of-type(T) - matches element that has one or more >> immediate children of type T. > > Slightly worried about the ambiguity of these names -- > > if I have one or more children, then I "have child". > if I have more than one child, then I "have children". Yeah, the names are probably not that good... Intention was to define: only-one and at-least-one predicates. Similar to '?' and '*' constructions in regular expressions. When :have-children is true then :have-child is true too. Have-more-than-one-child condition can be written as :have-children:not(:have-child) which is, I agree, looks ugly. Any ideas of how to name them properly? :only-one-child, :at-least-one-child, :only-one-child-of-type(T), :at-least-one-child-of-type(T) are a bit "noisy", isn't it? > > You seem to be using these with the reverse semantics. > > Philip TAYLOR > -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 18:26:31 UTC