Re: [css4-selectors] Focused descendant pseudo class

Even if we're talking about it, i was still taking the "!" for something
it shouldn't be...

So, what's does the "!" adds? Shouldn't we have the simple
"form:matches(> input:focus) input[submit]{...}"?
We have "form input[submit]" which declares css properties, but only if
"form" (the element which has the :matches) also validates "form >
input:focus". It just requires to put the :matches on a common node,
which could be "body" for html, in the worst case.
Do anyone have a use case where it is needed to have the "!" later in
the parentheses?


Le 26/01/2012 18:57, Brice PARENT a écrit :
> In the draft for :matches, it is said that it may not be combined with :not.
> So we may use "!" inside to do the same, i don't really understand why
> it couldn't be done using :not (like described in
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors4/#matches).
> My point is, if one (! or :not) may be done, let's do it without any
> addings like "!", no?
> Anyway, I totally agree that "!" is understood as NOT, and i was also
> confused with !important at the beginning.
>
> Le 26/01/2012 17:35, Brian Kardell a écrit :
>> 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 23:47:52 UTC