- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:58:56 +0200
- To: Eli Morris-Heft <eli.morris.heft@gmail.com>
- CC: "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com" <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, www-style@w3.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 28/1/12 02:09, Eli Morris-Heft wrote: > On Jan 27, 2012 5:46 PM, "Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com > <http://tanalin.com>" <mtanalin@yandex.ru <mailto:mtanalin@yandex.ru>> > wrote: > > P - UL > LI > > :matches(!UL + P) > LI > > Though it's a bit silly, it occurs to me to note that the > previous-sibling selector isn't a cure-all. What if you want to refer to > the ul in your example? You need something like: > > p - !ul > li > or > p + ul:has(> li) > > Damn. I used to be a fan of the ! indicator, but I think I just talked > myself out of it... > I might be mistaken, but isn't p + ul:has(>li) equivalent to p + ul! > li ? -- Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 01:59:30 UTC