- From: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 17:37:17 +0100
- To: Clive Chan <doobahead@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Clive Chan skrev: > The existence of the following-sibling combinator, +, begs the > question: why doesn't a previous-sibling combinator exist? I can't > imagine that it's any harder to implement, and I can't come up with > any semantic objection - in fact, the lack of symmetry would be a > semantic argument for it. > > If the above seems at all reasonable, the symbol "-" would make sense > for the job. > > Clive Chan > The symbol could be misinterpreted as a range specifier. At least by humans, I have no clue if the actual syntax has any risk of confusion.
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 16:37:48 UTC