- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:56:41 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/17/2013 12:43 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 03/19/2013 05:43 PM, Peter Moulder wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 02:34:39PM +0100, Simon Sapin wrote: >>> Le 19/03/2013 14:14, Peter Moulder a écrit : >> >>>> ... >> >>>> There's an issue open as to whether the specificity of :matches should change >>> >from max specificity to something else, though that issue was raised before >>>> :not was changed to take a selector list, so there isn't yet a corresponding >>>> proposal as to how or whether the specificity of :not(a, b) might change if >>>> that proposal for :matches(a, b) were to be adopted. >> >> Possibilities include: >> >> 1. Keeping as max (which would then become the only selector to use max). >> >> 2. Same specificity as a pseudo-class. >> >> 3. change to sum, so that :not(a, b) would in fact have the same specificity >> as :not(a):not(b). >> >> 4. Drop the list argument feature of :not. Also, #1 makes simple and straightforward things like :matches(em, strong) and :not(em, strong) behave the same. In both cases, you're taking the max specificity of one of the arguments. Just for :not() all of the arguments "match", whereas for :matches() only some of them do. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 19:57:12 UTC