Re: [selectors4][naming] Renaming :matches() (was: Proposal: Logical Combinators / Sets) from Peter Moulder on 2013-03-21 (www-style@w3.org from March 2013)

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:01:08 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <20130321000108.GA16448@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:28:35PM +0100, Simon Sapin wrote:

> We discussed this on the conf call today. :any() is great when there
> are multiple arguments:
> 
>   some > long + combinator ~ chain:any(.foo, .bar)
> 
> But one counter-argument that convinced me is that it doesn’t make
> any sense with a single argument. This can be useful when that
> selector contains combinators:
> 
>   ol li:matches(aside li)

Ooc, what's the reason that the above rule is (apparently quite deliberately)
invalid in the current selectors4 ?  Just wondering whether that reason might
be relevant to what the matches-any pseudo-class should be called.  E.g. I
wonder whether there's a chance that we'll end up with a different name or
syntax for combinators anyway, in which case the above argument might be moot.

pjrm.

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 00:01:33 UTC