Re: Selecting the parent of an element

>
> Several of us had issues with ! which we thought ! meant not as it does in
> pretty much every language.
>
> Similarly $ was recently rejected because it is being used in new CSS
> variables.
>
> It has also been suggested that :has() (see jquery and past posts) would
> mostly avoid this problem by adding no new single tokens to the main
> selector, keeping the search in the right direction and being useful
> multiply in the same selector.
>
Hmm. I quite like :has() -- it makes the contents parenthetical. However,
would it then be possible to do direct descendants using :has() ? That is to
say, does E:has(F) equate to $E > F or $E F? Can one write E:has(> F) (to my
eye, that looks odd). Of course, the same question applies to the other
combinators.

If these issues can be resolved, then I think I'll withdraw my reversed
combinators proposal in favour of :has().

--
Barry van Oudtshoorn
http://barryvan.com.au/
bvanoudtshoorn@gmail.com