- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 12:51:48 -0700
- To: Benjamin Poulain <bpoulain@apple.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 19:52:13 UTC
On Friday 2014-10-31 12:38 -0700, Benjamin Poulain wrote:
> Currently, :nth-child(An+B of selector) has the same specificity has :nth-child() (0, 1, 0).
>
> Given the new definition of :nth-child(An+B of selector) must match selector on the current element, I believe it would make sense to include the specificity of the nested selector in the specificity of :nth-child() and :nth-last-child().
>
> For example:
> :nth-child(odd of #WebKit)
> would have (1, 1, 0).
It largely seems reasonable to me. Presumably it would work like
the specificity of :matches() as described in
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/selectors/#specificity
Though it's a little bit interesting that:
:nth-child(odd of p, .byline)
would have specificity (0, 2, 0) for the #byline and (0, 1, 1) for
the p. I guess that's probably ok, though.
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 19:52:13 UTC