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

Re: Enhancing grouping of selectors

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinZjf4pv+-=2_8akxuLbWQYF8q-OzmO14G14jE9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Matthew Millar <mattmill30@hotmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> (Note, though, that you wrote the selector wrong. :any()'s arguments
>> are comma-separated, because you can have arbitrary selectors as
>> arguments. So it needs to be:
>> :any(e, #id, .class) :any(e, #id, .class) :any(e, #id, .class) {...}
> Ok, I couldn't find :any defined anywhere, ,only http://dbaron.org/log/20100424-any

Yeah, it's not in any draft yet.  It's just been discussed on the
mailing list, and then experimentally implemented by dbaron.

> which only allows a simple selector in the :any(). Is that just an implementation limitation?

Are you sure?  The particular example he gives uses only simple
selectors as arguments, but I don't think that's a general restriction
in his implementation.  Right, dbaron?

> On a related note I just looked at :not(), http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#negation, which is a similar 'logical pseudo class' and it is limited to a simple selector, and cannot contain itself. What are the reasons for this limitation, e.g. why can't I write any of the following?
> * :not(a.special)
> * :not(li > a)
> * :not(ol > li, ul > li)
> The latter could be written as:
> * :not(:any(ol, ul) > li)

Not sure; I wasn't in the group at the time.

Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 17:06:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC