- From: Nikita Popov <privat@ni-po.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:19:00 +0100
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Am 08.01.2010 19:05, schrieb Brad Kemper: > On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Nikita Popov<privat@ni-po.com> wrote: >> >>> I think that the variant with brackets I proposed is little bit better, >>> because it could be more widely used, e.g. >>> input([type=submit], [type=number], ...) >>> ("could" because I don't know, whether something like this, would be >>> good...) >>> >> There's still no need to extend the syntax there. You can do that >> with the pseudoclass: >> >> input:any([type=submit],[type=number]) {} >> >> I don't think there's anything you could do with parens in selectors >> that wouldn't be possible with the pseudoclass. As well, you stay >> within existing syntax, which means we don't have to change the >> grammar and possibly introduce new bugs. >> > I really like the idea in general, but I'm not sure about it being a pseudo-class. I'm not against that at this point, mind you, but it is not obvious to me if the following two rules are equivalent: > > div :any(span,div) > div:any(span,div) > > or would that second version be nonsense, and simple selectors as arguments could only be used with a universal selector (or naked, implying a universal selector there). I have yet another question about the exact syntax of the pseudo-class: Could I for example use this rule .page form:any(> input, label select) to match all input elements, that are direct descendants of forms or selects what are contained in a label? (At least it would make sense, if allowing the attribute selectors in :any())
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 18:19:29 UTC