- From: Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:18:15 +0400
- To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>,"www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
31.08.2012, 03:46, "Brian Kardell" <bkardell@gmail.com>: > On Aug 30, 2012 7:38 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >> The CSS WG has published an updated Working Draft of the Selectors Level 4: >> >> š š http://www.w3.org/TR/selectors4/ > Since I got no response last time I will try again.... > :has() ... please?š Reading the past minutes I do not see to be alone in my support... it is honestly a lot less confusing and already proven. Indeed, `:has()` would make HTML code more clear from extra elements and extra classes. For example, we have a table where some cells contain links clickable over entire area (including padding) while other cells contain just text: <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td><a href="#">2</a></td> </tr> </table> and we want that all cells have `em` padding, we are currently forced to wrap text with `SPAN`: <table> <tr> <td><span>1</span></td> <td><a href="#">2</a></td> </tr> </table> <style> TD > A, TD > SPAN {display: block; padding: .1em .3em; } </style> We can't use negative margins to compensate cell padding: <table> <tr> <td>1</td> <td><a href="#">2</a></td> </tr> </table> <style> TD, TD > A {padding: .1em .3em; } TD > A {display: block; margin: -.1em -.3em; } </style> since it wouldn't be pixel-perfect (calculated pixel value of `em` value varies depending on calculated pixel dimensions of previous elements).
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 13:18:44 UTC