- 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