- From: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:35:41 -0500
- To: brice.parent@websailors.fr
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
You gave: form:matches(! > input:focus) input[submit] { display: none; } What do you mean "if we can negate the content :matches with a "!"" ? I guess it is possible that I misunderstand but I think that question might have just effectively +1'ed my point. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Brice PARENT <brice@websailors.fr> wrote: > Le 26/01/2012 16:33, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com a écrit : >> 26.01.2012, 03:06, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>: >>> On 01/25/2012 02:34 PM, Brian Kardell wrote: >>> >>>> ! Or $ ? >>>> >>>> :-) >>> Something. Or other. :) The problem with $ was that it's often >>> used for variables, so people didn't like that for that reason, >>> which is fair. I don't have a particular preference of ASCII >>> character. >>> >>> ~fantasai >> Currently we probably have too many syntaxes that have similar meaning: >> >> 1. ':scope' in Selectors 4 (dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/ ); >> 2. '!' in Selectors 4 (dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/ ); >> 3. '&' in CSS Hierarchies Module (dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-hierarchies/ ). >> >> Instead, we could use one ':this' pseudo-element. I've initially proposed this pseudo-element in a thread related to potential '@with' at-rule: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jan/0371.html >> >> (':scope' may be considered as possible alternative for ':this', though use of ':scope' is questionable for me since it can be confusing when used in conjunction with HTML5 scoped stylesheets.) >> > Wouldn't this disallow the use of :this described in the linked page > about @rule? > In the examples with the @rule page, it seems like :this is to be > replaced by the content of @with, but the selector continues like it > always does, pointing to the last element. > Here, the :this would tell that even if the selector is continuing, this > is the element we want to be affected by the css rules. > > Anyway, as the topic is not this one, but "Focused descendant pseudo > class", i would say that > form:matches(! > input:focus) input[submit] { display: none; } > could be really usefull. Even if the "!" was changed to anything else... > > Quick question : if we can negate the content :matches with a "!", why > wouldn't that be possible to have :not(:matches()) or :matches(:not()) ? > >
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:36:17 UTC