- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:10:26 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote: > 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. Because complex selectors are more expensive than compound selectors. (A lot more, afaik.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 00:11:13 UTC