On Jan 8, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Nikita Popov <privat@ni-po.com> wrote: >> 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()) > > Hmm, that's interesting. You want a space between the form and :any, > since this isn't a pseudoclass for the form. (That is, you're not > trying to match the form.) See?It's not just me. > It's still just syntax sugar for ".page form > input, .page form label > select", Wouldn't making it a pseudo-class mean that the specificity of the rule might be different (in general; I didn't calculate for this particular example)? If so, that is more than just syntax sugar. > so I don't see any technical problems with it. I don't know > if we want to allow a naked combinator at the front like that, though. > You could avoid that with: > > .page form :any(form > input, label select) {} Yeah, unless the "form" part was important (due to an id, for instance): .page form :any(form#myform > input, form#myform label select) {} That's back to repeating, so you'd want to be able to do it the other way: .page form#myform :any(> input, label select)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:42 UTC