- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:24:44 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Henrik Andersson" <henke@henke37.cjb.net>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:03:20 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I would mainly be skeptical about having it match roots in regular (non-fragment) documents. The number of cases where the selector starts with a universal :first-child (and doesn't continue with "+html") is probably low, but I wouldn't bet on it being zero. Changing for DocumentFragments seems like the way to go. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 18:25:18 UTC