- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:58:02 +0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C926DA4A-4E11-4376-8A88-604537D54E0C@gmail.com>
On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:46 AM, fantasai wrote:
>> 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,
>
> I agree. I think anything other than that would have surprising
> cascade effects, and it would limit :any()'s usefulness for
> shortening unweildy selectors.
I agree also.
On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:58 AM, 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 you're not worried about people using this as a UA-selecting hack?
body { rules for most UAs' body tag }
:any(html) body { rules for this version of firefox or higher's body tag }
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 25 February 2010 23:58:40 UTC