- From: Benjamin Poulain <bpoulain@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:22:51 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 16, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Benjamin Poulain <bpoulain@apple.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Currently, :nth-child() does not restrict pseudo-elements like :not() does. Shouldn’t it have the same restrictions? >> >> For example: >> :nth-child(2n of ::after) >> :nth-child(2n+1 of ::first-letter) >> do not make much sense. > > It's not actually necessary to restrict it; :nth-child() only applies > to elements, and only counts elements, so using a pseudo-element in > the selector argument just won't match anything. At the moment, I have used a parsing error for WebKit, similar to :not(). I believe being explicit is more useful than ignoring it silently. Why should pseudo elements fail silently here and explicitly in :not()? Benjamin
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 19:25:37 UTC