- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:16:53 +0100
- To: "Henrik Andersson" <henke@henke37.cjb.net>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:15:34 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 3/19/13 4:53 PM, Henrik Andersson wrote:
>> If that is true then this should match:
>>
>> * html {
>
> No, because * explicitly matches only elements
Not just *, but in general the concept of a "document tree" in CSS is that
of a tree of elements, which isn't exactly equivalent to the DOM.
That's why I think it would be confusing to have :first-child etc match
something that isn't a child in this sense. Also, as has been pointed out
already, the current definition has been around for a long time. So I tend
to think that it should be kept, at the very least for the non-fragment
case (it's not clear to me what exactly the concrete use-cases for
fragments would be).
--
Øyvind Stenhaug
Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 13:17:37 UTC