- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:35:49 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:36:20 UTC
On Aug 16, 2012 3:53 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2012 8:18 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Example 4 > >> ========= > >> SASS: > >> #admin .tabbar a {font-weight: bold} > >> #demo .overview .fakelink {@extend a} > >> > >> CSS: > >> @matches $link a; > >> #admin .tabbar $link {font-weight: bold} > >> @matches $link #demo .overview .fakelink; > >> > >> Equivalent Vanilla: > >> #admin .tabbar a, > >> :matches(#admin .tabbar .fakelink):matches(#demo .overview .fakelink) { > >> font-weight: bold; > >> } > > > > Is the SASS/vanilla right in example 4? If so, can someone explain that? I > > get David's in that example, but how you go from the SASS to that I am > > having trouble following. Feel free to reply offlist if you think it is > > irrelevant...just wanted to record my confusion and get a correction if > > necessay. > > The vanilla is right, it just involves a more powerful variant of > :matches() than currently exists in Selectors, where it accepts > complex selectors. > > Given "A B $C {...} @extend $C X Y Z;", you match Z elements which > both have "A B" and "X Y" as ancestors. > > ~TJ Ah, I see now. Got it, thanks. Subject selector / :has() would make this extra fun :)
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:36:20 UTC