Re: [selectors] feedback

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:41 AM, fantasai <> 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.


Received on Thursday, 27 August 2015 06:07:28 UTC