Re: Proposal for limited :matches pseudoclass

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> More importantly, though, I feel this allows you to get some very
> confusing combinators when you start moving up and down the tree.
> Frex, "a > b < c d < e" would be possible, but I severely doubt it
> would be easy to understand.

That's one major problem, yes.  For example, the above combinator 
matches no nodes unless c == a.  Of course one could use .c instead of 
"c", in which case the thing being matched is "Element named 'e' which 
is the parent of an element named 'd' which has an ancestor matching 
'a.c', and said ancestor also has another child named 'b'."

I'm not sure that a selector expressing that would look simple or be 
easy to read in _any_ notation, honestly.

-Boris

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 17:02:01 UTC