Re: [selectors] Need to clearly define matching for :first-child, :nth-*, etc

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> There is some confusion about how things should work when an element has no
> parent and hence no concept of siblings.
>
> The language in the spec is vague enough that different people are
> interpreting it different ways.  It would be good to clarify things here by
> explicitly defining the sibling list of an element for purposes of this
> stuff or something; right now there is no definition that I can find.

There's no explicit definition because I didn't realize there could be
any possible confusion. We already have the + combinator, which relies
on the exact same concept.  How are people interpreting these
differently, and what needs clarification, exactly?

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 18:29:09 UTC