- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:19:10 +1100
- To: Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org>
- Cc: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>, Matt Mastracci <matthew@mastracci.com>, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Benjamin Poulain <benjamin@webkit.org> wrote: > On 2/4/15 1:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> >> wrote: >>> Tab Atkins Jr. skrev: >>>> So that writing `.foo:--n-siblings(3)` would become >>>> `:nth-child(1):nth-last-child(3) /self-and-siblings/ .foo` after >>>> expansion. >>> >>> Those selectors look scary. Simplicity helps authors get things right. >> >> You (or someone smarter than you that you're copy-pasting from) writes >> them once. Then you can use them in the simple way, like >> `.foo:--n-children(5)`. That's the whole point of custom selectors. > > What would be the specificity of :--n-children() in your example? That is an excellent question, and one that I'm not sure about. Probably we need some way to manually specify the specificity. I think the answer is always [0,1,0] (same as most pseudo-classes) or the specificity of a selector. I'll figure out how to indicate it in the syntax; this would probably kick this over to wanting a block syntax (naming the parts of it with descriptors) rather than a statement syntax. > If it is the specificity of the expansion, that would be hell to work with. That's almost certainly not what'll happen. No selector acts like that today. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2015 22:19:57 UTC