- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:03:20 -0700
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > 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). "Been around for a long time" is only relevant if we think people would be confused, or think there are backwards-compat issues. I don't think either is true here. On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:27:52 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I don't see a meaningful distinction between a root node and a node >> without a parent in a DocumentFragment. > > Maybe the latter should match :root, then? Then it would be possible to > select for it explicitly (and do a union with :first-child or whatever), if > desired. Makes sense to me. > See also > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Jun/0116.html Yay, a thread that directly addresses the current topic, but which no one responded to! ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 16:04:10 UTC