- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:20:00 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 09/15/2011 08:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Linss, Peter<peter.linss@hp.com> wrote: >> >> It would likely be better to simply add p:nth-of-class(foo, 2) or something like :nth-of(p.foo.bar:visited, 2) > > Agreed with Peter. Order within a compound selector has never > mattered before (with the exception of pseudo-elements, which pretend > that they don't have a combinator), and I don't think we should break > that now. If you *don't* have ordering matter, then this actually > precludes many useful selectors. > > An :nth-of() pseudo would be ideal. Way ahead of you people. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#nth-match ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 23:20:36 UTC