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

On 7/15/15 2:57 PM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> I think we had that discussion when I originally added :nth-child() to
> a draft of Selectors 3 eons ago. The consensus was that the functional
> pseudo-class does not match if there is no parent IIRC.

Yes. That consensus got reversed at some point, as I understand, and the 
intent of level 4 is that they should match in this case, by assuming 
the element is the only child of its (nonexistent) parent...

Now I'll go back to trying to implement these specs and let you guys 
keep flipflopping.  ;)

-Boris

Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2015 19:03:09 UTC