- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 12:24:08 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/18/2011 06:58 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: > I am not sure if others have commented on the choice of !, Heh, others have. I don't feel strongly about it, but we need something as a placeholder to bikeshed about. :) I personally prefer $, since it's a bit bolder (for use as a standalone character) and the S-shape can stand for "self" or "selector". If you think that's better I can change the draft. > I see, reading through the linked emails in the wiki how the idea > itself originates. The ! was really the big hiccup I think. > > So... To make sure I've got it....instead of: > div:has(.foo).bar:has(.x) > > Would you write: > !div:matches(! .foo).bar:matches(! .x) > > ? You have several options: div.bar:matches(! .foo):matches(! .x) !div.bar:matches(! .foo) .x !div.bar:matches(! .x) .foo The selector in question selects a <div> of class "bar" that has at least one descendent of the "foo" class and at least one descendant of the "x" class. I imagine this kind of branching, is pretty hard to implement efficiently. What's in the draft right now wouldn't allow you to do that; you can use the equivalent of at most one :has() per selector. ~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 16:24:38 UTC