W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2010

RE: proposal for a new css combinator

From: Niels Matthijs <niels.matthijs@internetarchitects.be>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:01:23 -0000
Message-ID: <EAD6F36F8B8A124FB32D722A828211FD0BDD80FF@win-s-manc3.shared.ifeltd.com>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, "Alan Gresley" <alan@css-class.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>

So I guess we have established that the proposed new combinator has no
solid alternative in the existing css specifications?

Apart from that, I want to stress the importance of the selector for
easier (styled) content syndication or working on frameworks. This
particular issue was a real pain when I was asked to develop a html/css
framework for a company. My job was to provide html and css for
components (think building blocks) so they could develop pages of their

This framework actually featured some A->B and B->A nestings, which were
really horrible to style, especially since there needen't be a limit for
the level of nestings. 

For reference, check out the css of the yahoo grids, which clearly
display a similar problem (unless they reworked it this last year or

I checked the scoped css proposal again, but I don't think this would
provide a good alternative solution.

Conclusion: I still firmly believe in the need for the new combinator,
especially with styling components independently in mind.

(original proposal: In short, I'd like something between the space and
child combinator. A combinator that allows for an (x) number of levels
between parent and child, but stops at the first matching level it

Niels Matthijs

-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] 
Sent: 13 January 2010 18:12
To: Alan Gresley
Cc: Niels Matthijs; www-style list
Subject: Re: proposal for a new css combinator

On 1/13/10 12:07 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:
> This is correct for the chained selector strings but not for these
> unchained selectors,
> .focusBlock *>header {
> // style rules //
> }
> .focusBlock>* header {
> // style rules //
> }

Sure.  These still don't match the elements Niels wants to match, of 

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 11:05:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:42 UTC