On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:41 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Well, it would be confusing if the behavior was implied from how > we interpret the tree. But it's not: it's explicitly called out: > > "Non-element nodes (e.g. text between elements) are ignored when > considering the adjacency of elements." > > As I mentioned, equivalent text has been there since CSS Level 2. I know, but this text doesn't always apply. Otherwise :empty would not work. Suddenly with :empty you operate on a different tree. It seems you also ignored my comment about Shadow DOM. > How about instead of providing a algorithm for finding matches in a > subtree, we used "match" as the hook, and DOM provides the list of > things that need to be evaluated against the selector? Doesn't work for :empty. And still doesn't help with pseudo-elements and such as the input for matching those would be the same. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 06:07:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 01:35:59 UTC