- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:25:47 -0600
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:16 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2010-02-25 17:58 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> At least in Gecko's case, what you wrote above would indeed be more >> or less just syntax sugar. But this: >> >> :any(#authors, #publications) div >> >> would probably be faster to match than: >> >> #authors div, #publications div >> >> In fact, we're looking into implementing this right now (as >> :-moz-any()) to more efficiently deal with the numerous rules of >> this form that appear in our UA stylesheet. > > So the one thing that I just realized I'm not sure how to implement > is specificity. (What I actually have implemented is treating :any > as a pseudo-class and ignoring its arguments, which probably isn't > what we want.) > > So given a selector like: > > p:any(:hover,#mypara) > > Should this selector have: > > specificity 11 (p + :any) > specificity 111 (p + :hover + #mypara) > specificity 121 (p + :any + :hover + #mypara) > specificity 11 (p + :hover) or 101 (p + #mypara) depending on how it > matches (with 101 if it matches both ways)? > one of 11 or 101, not depending on how it matches (just always the > lowest or highest) > > I'd note that the next-to-last seems like it might be best, but I > can't think of an obvious way to implement it in our code. Yes, ideally the :any() is transparent wrt specificity, which is your second-to-last option. I'm not opposed to the first or last(with highest) options, though, if either of them end up being sufficiently simpler. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 23:26:40 UTC