- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:54:29 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>, Gabriele Romanato <gabriele.romanato@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:04 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> However, what would happen if you had something like this? >>> <div> >>> <span>...</span> >>> <img ... alt="Now things are getting funnier!"> >>> <span>...</span> >>> </div> >>> Then we get a difference between what the selectors would match: >>> div>span+span+span matches nothing, while div>span:nth-child(3) >>> matches the <span> after the <img>. >> >> The actual equivalent of "span:nth-sibling(3)" is "* + * + span". >> Both of these would match the same things in both examples, and in >> your example below. > > It seems the intent is not clear. I thought 'span:nth-sibling(3)' was > supposed to match only the third of that type, when sequential. Like this: > > span:first-of-type + span + span Ah, possibly. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure of what's being suggested. I need more examples. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 17:55:21 UTC