- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:11:33 +0100
- To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "'Benjamin Poulain'" <benjamin@webkit.org>, "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
± On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, François REMY ± <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: ± > ± A "generator of a disjunction" makes :matches() a special syntax ± > form, not a ± real pseudo-class. That would be somewhat easier, but ± > it would also be ± weird. Dunno if I wanna go down that road. ± > ± > Also, it's not a disjunction. If it was, the following two would be equivalent: ± > ± > a:matches(.b c, .d e) ± > a.b c, a.d e ± > ± > If I understood the situation correctly, they are not. ± ± No, it's more complicated than that. Let's rephrase in explicit AND/OR terms, ± to make it clear how it's in DNF: ± ± (a AND .b c) OR (a AND .d e) ± ± It's a disjunction of conjunctions. If we extend to pseudo-elements, this won't stay accurate; ==> [a]:matches([b], ::before) ==> ([a] AND [b]) OR ([a] AND ::before) Which is why I argue we probably shouldn't allow that.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 18:12:05 UTC