On 01/08/2010 10:05 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > 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. Consider that it's the opposite of :not(). div:not(.header, .footer) /* div that is neither .header nor .footer */ div:any(.header, .footer) /* div that is either .header or .footer */ As Tab noted, most earlier proposals used :matches() div:matches(.header, .footer) ~fantasaiReceived on Friday, 8 January 2010 22:33:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:42 UTC