- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:32:48 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Nikita Popov <privat@ni-po.com>, news <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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)
~fantasai
Received on Friday, 8 January 2010 22:33:24 UTC