- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:21:05 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Matthew Millar <mattmill30@hotmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:18 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Friday 2010-09-17 08:03 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> This runs into issues with scoping. From what it looks like, your & >> combinator only lets you group together selectors that form a single >> element (that is, no element of the group can have any other >> combinators). :any() lets you group arbitrary selectors together. > > What I implemented in Gecko is without combinators, actually. > > It wouldn't be particularly hard to implement (though it makes the > specificity issue in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/thread.html#msg263 > a little more complicated). It might make the selectors a good bit > harder to read, though. Yeah, the :any() pseudoclass is a much better solution to the problem overall. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 20:21:58 UTC